• 


E 

440 

Ta 


I860  Association.  \ 
Tract,  No.  2.     / 


STATE  SOVEREIGNTY 


AND    THE 


DOCTRINE  OF  COERCION, 


BY    THE 


HON.  WM.   D.   POKTEK; 

TOGETHER   WITH   A 

LETTER 

FROM 

HON.  J.  K.  PAULDING, 

FORMER,  SEC.   OF  NAVY. 


THE  RIGHT  TO  SECEDE, 


BY 


"STATES. 


and  send  to  your  Neighbor. 


. 


STATE   SOVEREIGNTY 

AND    THE 

DOCTRINE  OF  COERCION. 


To  THE  MEN  OF  THE  SOUTH: 

The  recent  speech  of  Mr.  Douglas  at  Norfolk,  in  which  he 
threatened  the  Southern  States  with  military  coercion  in  the 
event  of  secession,  ought  to  startle  and  arouse  the  people  of  those 
States,  like  the  blast  of  a  hostile  trumpet  at  midnight!  The 
time,  the  place,  and  the  'circumstances  under  which  this  threat 
was  uttered,  give  the  last  tinish  to  its  audacity  and  sanguinary 
significance  ! 

The  election  of  Lincoln  is  now  well  nigh  certain.  Nothing 
short  of  a  miracle  can  prevent  it.  Lincoln  is  the  chief  and  expo 
nent  of  a  party  that  is  purely  sectional — a  party  that  has  no  foot 
hold  or  resting  place  south  of  a  geographical  line,  precisely 
separating  the  slaveholding  from  the  non-slaveholding  States.  In 
fifteen  States  of  the  Union  it  has  no  countenance  or  recognition. 
The  avowed  object  of  this  sectional  party  in  seeking  power,  is  to 
inaugurate  and  establish  a  policy  in  the  government  hostile  to  the 
peace  and  safety'of  the  slave  States,  derogatory  to  their  honor, 
and  ultimately  subversive  of  their  whole  social  polity;  in  a  word, 
to  proscribe  them  and  put  them  under  the  ban  of  the  govern 
ment,  with  a  view  to  their  demoralization  and  ultimate  ruin. 
This  is  their  great,  if  not  their  sole,  bond  of  union.  Of  course, 
some  are  animated  by  fanaticism,  some  by  the  hope  of  spoils, 
some  by  the  lust  of  power,  some  by  one  motive,  and  some  by 
another;  but  the  principle  of  union,  the  cement,  the  thing  that 
bands  the  party  together  and  keeps  it  together,  is  hatred  of  sla 
very  and  slaveholders — a  bitter,  malignant,  calculating  hatred; 
and  a  settled  determination  to  use  all  the  powers  and  agencies  of 
government  to  dishonor,  cripple  and  destroy  them.  The  powers 
and  agencies  of  government !  Consider  it  for  a  moment  in  this 
point  of  view.  If  there  be  any  virtue  in  government,  it  consists 
in  justice,  equality  and  the  duty  of  protection.  Its  proper  func- 


tions,  in  reference  to  i'ts'own  citizens  or  subjects,  are  those  of 
peace  and  security.  It  is  intended  as  a  shield,  not  as  a  sword;  as 
a  dispenser  of  blessings,  not  as  a  scatlerer  of  curses.  What  do 
you,  what  can  you,  think  of  that  government  which,  forgetting  its 
own  nature,  abandoning  its  proper  duty,  and  perverting  to  the 
purposes  of  annoyance  and  destruction  what  was  intended  for  the 
most  kindly  and  beneficent  action,  shall  deliberately  and  avow 
edly  employ  its  resources  and  its  powers  to  promote  discord,  to 
stir  up  sedition,  to  rend  the  country  asunder,  and  array  one  part 
of  it  in  mortal  hatred  against  another — to  proclaim  and  inaugur 
ate  between  the  institutions  of  one  section  and  those  of  the  other 
an  irrepressible  conflict,  which  must  inevitably  lead  to  issues  of 
life  and  death,  and  can  terminate  only  in  subjugation  on  one 
hand  or  disruption  on  the  other!  And  what  are  those  powers  and 
resources?  The  purse  and  the  sword — the  revenue,  the  mail,  the 
army  and  the  navy!  Money  which  is  called  the  sinews  of  war — 
and  the  army  and  navy,  which  have  been  aptly  styled  the  talons 
of  national  power!  These  resources,  drawn  from  the  bosom  of 
tiie  country,  to  be  turned  against  it  for  the  purpose  of  rending, 
subduing  and  crushing  it !  Have  you  pondered  well  what  it  is  to 
have  the  whole  power  of  a  great  government  like  ours,  civil  as 
well  as  military,  in  the  cabinet  as  well  as  the  field,  legislative, 
executive  and  perhaps  judicial,  systematically  directed  to  your 
injury  and  oppression?  The  appeal  is  to  you,  men  of  the  South! 
I  know  you  have  thought  of  it,  but  I  fear  you  have  not  measured 
it  in  all  its  length  and  breadth  and  depth.  You  have  thought  of 
it  speculatively  ;  but  you  ha\e  not  yet  been  called  to  feel,  by 
experience,  the  iron  hand  of  a  hostile  government  laid  upon  you  in 
deadly  earnest.  When  you  shall  have  felt  it,  your  day  of  safety 
will  have  been  well  nigh  spent.  Ireland  could  tell  you  a  tale  ! 
and  Poland  and  Italy!  and  from  Italy  you  may  yet  learn  another 
and  a  nobler  lesson  ! 

Are  not  the  designs  of  the  Republican  Party  aggressive,  hos 
tile,  and  deadly?  I  say  of  the  Party,  for  as  long  as  these  designs 
were  confined  to  individuals,  although  insulting  and  mischievous, 
they  could  not  aspire  to  any  great  dignity  or  consequence.  But 
since  they  have  been  adopted  and  proclaimed  by  a  great  sectional 
party  embracing  a  majority  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  and  that 
party  is  about  to  be  called,  by  the  popular  voice,  to  assume  the 
responsibilities  and  wield  the  entire  power  of  the  national  gov 
ernment,  it  is  abundant  time,  (if  indeed  it  be  not  too  late,)  for  the 
weaker  and  the  menaced  section,  to  anticipate  the  coming  blow, 
to  repudiate  the  degrading  domination,  and  taking  counsel  of  its 
courage  and  its  hopes,  rather  than  of  its  fears,  to  resume  into  its 
own  hands,  the  means  of  safety,  and  the  control  of  its  destinies 
for  the  future.  And  because  the  people  of  some  of  the  Southern 
Stales,  in  view  of  an  exigency  of  so  great  peril,  have  dared  to- 
discuss  their  grievances  and  their  remedy,  and  have  announced 
their  determination  not  to  be  made  the  subjects  and  slaves  of  a 


consolidated  despotism,  Mr.  Dougfas  has  thought  proper  to  put 
foward  his  veto  and  his  threat!  Not  a  Black  Republican  !  from 
such  it  would  have  been  in  perfect  keeping,  and  although  it 
might  have  excited  indignation,  would  not  have  occasioned  sur 
prise.  But  Mr.  Douglas,  a  Democrat,  the  professed  friend  of  the 
South  and  Southern  rights,  standing  on  the  soil  of  Virginia 
consecrated  by  the  birth  and  triumph  of  the  true  State  Rights 
doctrines,  has  proclaimed  in  the  face  of  a  portion  of  her  people, 
his  hope  that  "  the  President,  whoever  he  may  be,  would  treat 
all  attempts  to  break  up  the  Union,  by  resistance  to  its  laws,  as 
Old  Hickory  treated  the  nullifiers  in  1832,"  and  his  determina 
tion  to  sustain  "  with  all  his  energy,"  the  President  in  so  doing. 
If  the  genius  of  the  proud  Old  Dominion  looked  down  upon  the 
scene  in  which  this  insulting  bravado  was  greeted  by  some  of  her 
own  sons  with  "applause"  and  l"  cheers,"  how  must  she  ha^e 
bowed  her  head  in  sorrow  and  shame  at  the  degeneracy  of  her 
children  !  tf  Mr.  Douglas  was  bold,  defiant,  and  menacing,  how 
supple  and  submissive  were  his  hearers!  He  threatened  a  sover 
eign  State  with  coercion  ;  they,  the  citizens  of  a  sovereign  State 
that  was  the  nursing  mother  of  the  right  of  secession,  and  has 
maintained  it  without  question  for  over  sixty  years,  received  the 
threat  of  chastisement,  not  only  without  a  murmur,  but  with  man 
ifestations  of  delight.  Shades  of  Henry,  of  Mason,  and  of  Jeffer 
son  !  where  has  your  spirit  fled — how  have  your  teachings  been 
despised  ?  Thjs  is,  indeed,  to  kiss  the  hand  and  the  rod  that  are 
uplifted  to  smite  ! 

But  is  it  legally  and  constitutionally  true,  that  a  State  cannot 
withdraw  from  the  Union,  (however  urgent  the  causes,)  without 
incurring  the  penalty  of  being  coerced  into  submission?  If  her 
honor  and  safety  demand  a  separation  from  the  federal  govern 
ment,  has  she  so  parted  with  the  control  over  her  own  internal  life 
and  destiny,  as  to  be  powerless  in  her  own  behalf,  nerveless  for 
her  own  defence?  Has  she  stripped  herself  so  bare,  and  bound 
herself  so  fast,  that  no  attribute  of  sovereignty  remains  to  her  for 
the  protection  of  the  property,  liberties  and  lives  of  her  citizens 
within  her  own  limits,  against  the  avowed  hostility  of  a  federal 
Union,  which  has  assumed  its  worst  and  most  dangerous  form — 
that  of  a  sectional  domination,  animated  by  fanaticism  and  the 
lust  of  spoils  and  power?  These  are  grave  questions,. and  upon 
their  solution  the  very  existence  of  the  Southern  States  may  be 
said  to  depend. 

At  Norfolk,  Mr.  Douglas  had  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  he 
would  advise  and  vindicate  resistance  to  "the  Southern  States,"  if 
they  undertook  to  secede  from  the  Union  upon  the  inauguration 
of  Abraham  Lincoln.  At  Jones'  Wood,  near  New  York,  he 
attempted  to  explain  or  qualify,  by  drawing  a  distinction  between 
a  State,  and  the  citizens  of  a  State.  The  distinction  between  cit 
izens  acting  .vithout  the  authority  of  their  State,  and  citizens  acting 
not  only  with  the  authority  but  under  the  mandate  of  their  Staiu 


is  just  and  well  founded  ;  but  this  is  not  the  one  recognized  by  Mr. 
Douglas.  He  says  that  a  State  cannot  commit  treason  against 
the  Federal  Government,  but  that  her  citizens  may.  What  a 
pitiful  evasion  !  This  is  his  concession  to  State  Rights  !  Who 
ever  supposed  that  the  State,  as  an  abstraction,  could  commit 
treason;  could  be  tried,  condemned,  and  executed!  The  whole 
S  question  is  whether  or  not  the  State  can  release  her  citizens  from 
their  obligations  to  the  federal  authority,  and  protect  them  under 
the  sufficient  shield  of  her  own  sovereign  authority  !  This  is  the 
right  which  Mr.  Douglas  absolutely  denies,  except  in  the  way  of 
revolution  ;  but  which  Herschel  V.  Johnson,  his  colleague  on  the 
presidential  ticket,  has  said,  is  "  the  last  an'd  only  hope  of  the 
South."  If  there  be  such  a  right,  then  the  States  are  sovereign 
and  independent;  if  there  be  not,  then  they  are  amalgamated  and 
fused  down,  hopelessly  and  helplessly,  into  one  government  and 
one  people.  In  the  one  case  the  government  is  a  union  of  States 
founded  upon  good  will,  confidence  and  affection  ;  in  the  other  it 
is  a  consolidated  despotism,  to  be  held  together  by  the  sword  and 
the  bayonet.  In  the  one  case,  the  States  have  in  their  own  hands 
the  right  and  the  power  of  peaceable  redress  for  intolerable 
wrongs;  in  the  other,  they  must  wade  to  it  through  blood  and 
slaughter.  It  behooves  the  South,  as  the  weaker  section,  (when 
the  government  is  about  to  become  purely  sectional,)  to  see  that 
she  does  not  surrender  or  compromise  a  right  which  will  be  her 
only  hope  of  salvation,  unless  she  rises  in  her  might  and  rends 
the  Union  into  fragments.  The  people  that  cannot  or  will  not 
protect  themselves — that  are  not  sufficient  to  their  own  protection, 
are  already  no  better  than  slaves.  They  have  their  masters; 
and  their  property,  their  liberties  and  their  lives  are  no  longer  in 
their  own  keeping.  Their  doom  is  sealed,  and  it  is  a  doom  of 
infamy  !  And  what  is  worst  of  all,  they  will  have  invited  and 
deserved  it ! 

Our  doctrine  is  that  the  States,  before  the  adoption  of  the  Con 
stitution,  were  sovereign  and  independent;  that  the  Federal  Union 
is  a  union  of  States,  and  that  the  Constitution  is  a  covenant  or 
compact  between  them  and  the  fundamental  law  of  their  Union; 
and  that  inasmuch  as  the  covenant  or  compact  was  between  sover 
eigns,  and  there  is  no  umpire  or  common  interpreter  between 
them,  each  has  the  right  to  judge  for  itself  of  infractions  of  the 
contract,  and  to  determine  for  itself  the  mode  and  measure  of 
redress. 

If  these  premises  be  true,  it  results  from  the  sovereign  charac 
ter  of  the  States  and  from  the  nature  of  the  compact  of  union,  that 
any  State,  which  conceives  herself  aggrieved  beyond  endurance, 
may,  at  her  sovereign  will  and  pleasure,  shake  off  the  bonds  of  a 
broken  covenant  and  seek  her  safety  in  a  separate  nationality  ; 
and  that  the  true  and  only  check  on  the  capricious  or  unwise  exer 
cise  of  this  great  sovereign  right,  is  to  be  found  in  the  condition 
of  isolation  and  comparative  weakness  to  which  she  will  expose 


herself  in  so  doing.  Of  the  prudence  and  expediency  of  this  last 
resort,  her  people  must  judge  for  themselves  and  their  posterity, 
under  the  gravest  and  most  solemn  responsibilities  that  can  be 
devolved  upon  them.  But  they  will  so  judge,  feeling  and  knowing 
that  there  can  be  no  greater  calamity^than  a  voluntary  submission 
to  tyranny. 

No  fact  in  our  political  history  is  more  certain  than  that  the 
thirteen  colonies  began  the  contest  with  Great  Britain  as  distinct 
communities,  and  came  out  of  it  severally  sovereign  and  indepen 
dent  States.  Even  the  articles  of  confederation,  which  was  a 
mere  league,  offensive  and  defensive,  was  not  ratified  by  any  ot 
the  States  until  three  years  after  the  beginning  of  the  war,  and  two 
years  after  the  Declaration  of  Independence  ;  and  it  was  three' 
years  more  before  it  was  ratified  by  all  of  them.  Any  colony 
might  have  declined  to  enter  upon  the  revolution.  Upon  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  each  became  de  jure  an  independent 
and  sovereign  State,  and  upon  the  acknowledgment  thereof  each 
became  sovereign  and  independent  de  facto  as  well  as  de  jure. 
Whether  small  or  great,  they  were  severally  States  or  nations, 
and  had  their  separate  local  governments  in  full  and  efficient 
operation.  And  each  or  any  of  them  might  have  continued  in  a 
condition  of  separate  nationality  to  this  day,  according  to  its  own 
will  and  pleasure,  subject  only  to  the  hazards  and  vicissitudes  to 
which  all  nations  are  subject. 

A  second  fact  is,  that  each  State  adopted  the  Constitution  ot 
1787  for  herself,  and  would  not  and  could  not  have  been  bound 
by  it,  except  through  the  action  of  a  Convention  of  her  own  people. 
The  seventh  Article  says,  "  the  ratification  of  the  Conventions  of 
nine  States  shall  be  sufficient  for  the  establishment  of  this  Consti 
tution  between  the  States  so  ratifying  the  same.'1  In  point  of  fact, 
two  States,  North  Carolina  and  Rhode  Island,  did  not  ratify,  until 
some  time  after  the  other  eleven  ;  and  it  was  in  their  option,  as  it 
was  in  the  option  of  each  and  every  State,  .to  have  refrained  from 
so  doing  altogether. 

A  third  fact  to  be  noted  is,  that  the  Union  created  by  the  Con 
stitution,  was  between  States  or  nations,  co-equal  in  all  the  essen 
tial  attributes  of  Sovereignty.  Thirteen  distinctive  States,  (each 
a  nation,  however  small  or  weak,)  loosely  held  together  by  a  league 
offensive  and  defensive,  agreed  to  form  between  themselves  u  a 
more  perfect  Union  ;"  and  to  that  end  ordained  a  Constitution  for 
the  "United  States,  of  America."  This  phraseology  is  in  utter 
contradistinction  to  what  would  be  employed  for  the  purpose  of 
describing  the  fusion  or  consolidation  of  one  collective  people.  A 
Union  of  independent  and  sovereign  bodies  implies  ex  vi  termini, 
a  league,  an  alliance,  a  partnership  :  and  the  Constitution  adopted 
by  them  for  that  purpose,  is  the  compact  or  fundamental  law  ofj 
the  league  or  partnership. 

After  all,  whatever  shape  this  controversy  may  assume,  it  comes  ] 
back  at  last  to  the  old  question  between   centralism  and  State 


8 

Rights  ;  between  a  consolidated  nation,  and  a  confederated  Repub 
lic  of  Republics.  The  political  facts  above  stated  furnish  the 
key  to  the  whole  controversy;  and  it  is  only  by  losing  sight  of 
them,  that  any  real  question  can  be  raised.  All  States  are  sover 
eign,  and  when  they  deal  with  each  other,  they  deal  only  as 
sovereigns.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  Sovereignty  in  any  political 
machinery.  Government  is  simply  an  agency  or  instrumentality, 
and  it  is  the  people  of  States  that  make  and  unmake  governments. 
When  States  or  peoples  make  a  government,  they  delegate  the 
necessary  powers  and  authorities:  but  delegated  power  is  never 
sovereign,  for  sovereign  power  is  inherent,  original,  and  self- 
existent.  The  people  that  govern  themselves  in  their  affairs, 
domestic  and  foreign,  either  separately  or  in  common  with  others, 
through  chosen  agents,  and  by  delegated  authorities,  have  not 
parted  with  their  sovereignty,  and  are  still  in  fact  and  in  truth  a 
nation.  The  powers  of  the  State  governments,  as  well  as  the 
powers  of  the  Federal  government,  are  derived  from  the  peoples 
of  the  States  respectively.  These  peoples  are  the  creators — and 
the  governments  are  the  tilings  created:  the  former  are  the  prin 
cipals,  the  latter  are  the  agents  or  functionaries.  Is  it  not  passing 
strange  that  ideas  should  be  so  confounded,  and  the  order  of 
things  so  perverted  as  that  the  inferior  should  be  placed  above 
the  superior  ;  the  changeable  and  fluctuating  above  the  permanent 
and  fixed  ;  the  thing  made  above  the  power  which  made  and  can 
unmake  ? 

It  is  a  common  error  to  suppose  that  the  delegation  of  what  is 
recognized  as  a  part  of  sovereign  power,  makes  the  recipient  a 
sovereign,  and  derogates  in  the  same  degree  from  the  sovereignty 
of  the  bestower.  Towns  and  cities  exercise  sovereign  powers,  as, 
for  example,  that  of  taxation  ;  but  is  the  town  or  city  the  sover 
eign,  or  the  State  rather  that  gives  them  their  charters  and  can. 
revoke  them  at  will  ?  And,  on  the  other  hand,  is  any  State  or 
nation  the  less  sovereign  because,  for  a  time,  and  for  its  own  pur 
poses,  it  has  conferred  these  high  faculties  upon  local  govern 
ment  agencies?  So  long  as  these  faculties  or  powers  are  exer 
cised  by  delegation,  in  its  behalf  and  for  its  convenience  and 
benefit,  the  State  or  nation  is  self-governing,  because  it  acts 
through  its  chosen  agents;  and  is  unimpaired  in  its  essential 
attributes  of  sovereignty,  because  so  soon  as  shorn  of  these,  it 
ceases  to  be  a  State.  Nor  does  the  principle  vary  at  all  whether 
the  delegation  has  been  made  to  a  municipal  government,  a  State 
government  or  a  federal  government;  whether  it  has  been  made 
in  a  separate  or  in  a  confederated  form  of  polity,  or  in  both  com 
bined.  The  United  Slates  Government  derived  its  being  and  its 
powers  from  precisely  the  same  source  that  the  local  governments 
xlid,  to  wit :  from  the  peoples  of  the  States  respectively.  There  is 
no  mysticism  about  its  origin.  It  can  claim  no  higher  birth — no 
more  dignified  ancestry.  Nor  Has  it  any  divine  right  wherewith 
to  hedge  itself  about,  except  so  far  as  the  voice  of  many  peoples  is 


the  voice  of  God.  It  is  of  limited  powers  and  for  specified  pur 
poses;  its  range  is  circumscribed;  there  are  many  things  which 
it  cannot  do,  and  what  it  can  do,  it  does  in  the  name  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  States  that  called  it  into  existence.  Whatever  of 
power  it  has,  is  derived  from  others,  and  is  he^d  in  trust  for 
others;  and  it  is,  therefore,  in  no  proper  sense  of  the  word, 
sovereign. 

We  may  safely  assume,  then,  that  the  States  were  sovereign, 
and  independent  before  they  adopted  the  Constitution  and  entered 
into  the  Union.  Have  they  ceased  to  be  so,  by  their  participa 
tion  in  the  formation  of  the  federal  government  ? 

The  people  of  the  United  States  live  under  two  systems  of 
government :  a  system  of  local  government  for  internal  purposes, 
and  of  general  government  for  external  purposes.  And  in  form 
ing  the  one  as  well  as  the  other,  they  establish  Constitutions; 
and  out  of  these  constitutions  sprung  the  governments,  which  are 
nothing  more  than  public  trusts  or  agencies.  What  then  is  a  Con 
stitution?  According  to  the  American  understanding,  it  is  a 
written  instrument  duly  authenticated,  specifying  the  powers  and 
functions  delegated  for  the  purposes  of  government,  and  defining 
the  extent  and  limitations  of  the  same.  By  whom  was  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  prepared  ?  By  the  States 
through  their  delegates  in  convention,  at  Philadelphia.  To  whom 
was  it  submitted  ?  To  the  States,  separately  and  respectively,  to  be 
approved  or  rejected  by  them  in  their  respective  conventions,  each 
acting  for  itself.  Upon  or  between  whom  was  it  to  be  obligatory? 
We  answer,  in  the  very  words  of  the  7th  Article  of  the  instru 
ment  itself,  already  quoted  :  "  JBetween  the  States  so  ratifying  the 
same."  By  whom  was  it  actually  ratified?  By  the  peoples  of  the 
several  States  assembled  in  their  respective  conventions.  It  is 
clear,  then,  that  the  parties  to  this  instrument — call  it  covenant, 
compact,  treaty,  constitution,  or  what  we  will — were  States,  sov 
ereign  and  co-equal;  and  that  it  must  be  subject  to  the  same  tests 
and  governed  by  the  same  rules  which  apply  to  all  other  com 
pacts  or  engagements  between  sovereigns. 

From  the  imperfection  of  language  and  the  ingenuity  of  the 
human  mind,  such  an  instrument  as  the  Federal  Constitution 
must  be  liable,  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  in  good  faith,  to  a 
diversity  of  interpretations,  as  to  the  extent  and  limitations  of 
the  powers  granted  or  reserved.  Who,  then,  is  to  be  the  final  ~\ 
judge — the  common  arbiter?  The  Constitution  itself  does  not 
name  any,  so  far  as  relates  to  political  questions — the  partition 
lines  of  power  between  the  Slates  and  the  General  Government. 
The  jurisdiction  of  the  Supreme  Court  extends  only  to  "  cases  in 
law  and  equity,"  and  to  parties  who  are  amenable  to  the  process 
of  the  court;  it  embraces  judicial,  not  political  questions — for 
there  are  modes  of  oppression  and  usurped  power  which,  under 
our  forms  of^Jaw,  could  never  be  drawn  within  the  cognizance  of  \ 
that  department.  But  the  conclusive  answer  is,  that  although 


10 

the  proposition  was  frequently  and  distinctly  submitted  in  the 
Convention,  to  make  the  Supreme  Court  "the  tribunal  to  decide 
in  doubtful  cases,"  it  did  not  prevail  in  any  form,  and  never 
became  a  part  of  the  Constitution.  Attention  was  expressly 
directed  to  the  matter,  and  some  leading  members  manifested 
great  anxiety 'because  no  tribunal  had  been  provided  to  determine 
finally  in  controverted  cases  between  the  two  Governments. 

The  question  then  recurs — who,  in  the  absence  of  any  express 
constitutional  provision,  is  to  judge,  in  the  last  resort,  between 
the  contracting  parties?  The  only  true  and  sufficient  answer  is 
to  be  found  in  the  rule  applicable  to  Sovereigns.  Each  must 
Judge  for  himself.  Sovereigns  have  no  superiors  :  each  is  equal 
to  the  other.  Honor  and  good  faith  are  their  only  bonds.  An 
engagement  between  them  broken  in  part,  is  broken  in  whole  ; 
and  the  party  injured  is  released  from  ail  obligations.  No  Sov 
ereign  who  believes  and  declares  that  a  covenant  has  been  vio 
lated  can  rightfully  be  required  to  observe  it  longer.  Even  Mr. 
Webster,  who  will  hardly  be  suspected  of  too  strong  a  leaning 
towards  State  Rights,  used  the  following  language  in  his  Capon 
Spring's  speech,  in  1851  : 

u  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  and  repeat,  that  if  the  Northern 
States  refuse  wilfully  and  deliberately  to  carry  into  effect  that  part 
of  the  Constitution  which  respects  the  restoration  of  fugitive  slaves, 
the  South  would  no  longer  be  bound  to  observe  the  compact.  Jl 
bargain  broken  on  one  side  is  a  bargain  broken  on  all  sides." 

Let  it  not  be  supposed  for  a  moment  that  the  States  are  less 
than  sovereign  in  consequence  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution 
and  the  formation  of  the  government.  A  voluntary  delegation  of 
power  in  trust  does  not  derogate  from  sovereignty;  nor  does  any 
compact,  treaty  or  alliance.  States  frequently  enter  into  engage 
ments  with  each  other  of  the  most  solemn  character  and  under 
the  gravest  sanctions,  whereby  they  impose  upon  themselves 
restrictions  and  prohibitions;  but  no  person  at  all  conversant 
with  such  matters,  ever  supposed  that  they  became  thereby  a 
whit  the  less  independent  or  sovereign  nations.  A  striking  illus 
tration  is  to  be  found  in  the  articles  of  confederation.  Each 
State  expressly  reserved  therein  "its  sovereignty,  freedom  and 
independence,"  and  at  the  same  time,  all  pledged  themselves  that 
the  articles  should  be  inviolably  observed  by  every  State,  and 
that  the  Union  should  be  perpetual.  It  is  clear  that  they  did  not 
consider  the  preservation  of  their  sovereignty  and  independence 
at  all  inconsistent  with  the  obligations  of  even  a  perpetual  union; 
and  we  do  not  suppose  a  doubt  was  ever  anywhere  entertained 
but  that  it  was  competent  for  any  one  of  them,  upon  cause  deemed 
sufficient  by  itself,  to  withdraw  from  the  Confederation  and 
determine  the  Union.  Nor  is  there  anything  in  the  present  Con 
stitution  to  prevent  the  exercise  of  the  same  high  and  sovereign 
right  on  the  part  of  any  aggrieved  Slate,  whenever  her  grievan 
ces  shall  become,  in  her  deliberate  judgment,  no  longer  tolerable. 


11 

There  is  a  theory  that  we  are  one  nation — one  consolidated 
people  ;  and  hence  the  ideas  of  the  indissolubility  of  the  Union, 
and  of  the  right  to  coerce  a  refractory  member.  If  this  be  so,  is 
it  not  singular  that  we  have  no  distinctive  name  of  identity  as  a 
nation.  We  call  ourselves  in  common  parlance  Americans  ;  and 
yet  we  are  no  more  Americans  than  any  and  all  of  the  other  peo 
ples  of  the  continent,  North  and  South.  The  Canadians  are  Ameri 
cans  as  well  as  ourselves,  but  still  they  have  their  distinctive 
national  title;  and  so  of  the  Mexicans,  the  Columbians,  the 
Peruvians,  and  every  other  State  or  Nation  on  the  continent.  We 
were  certainly  not  so  poor,  but  that  we  could  afford  ourselves  a 
"baptismal  name.  It  would  have  cost  nothing,  and  would  certain 
ly  have  nationalized  us,  if  there  had  been  any  such  design.  It  is 
believed  that  Dr.  Franklin  did  suggest  the  name  of  Fredonia,  but 
it  is  certain  that  the  suggestion  was  not  accepted.  The  constitu 
tion  calls  us  the  "United  States  of  America,"  or  by  inversion 
the  "  States  United  of  Jlmtrica"  the  very  title  by  which  we  were 
called  under  the  old  confederation,  when  nobody  has  ever  pre 
tended  that  we  were  one  nation,  and  certainly  the  most  descrip 
tive  and  appropriate  title  that  could  be  applied  to  a  confederacy 
of  sovereign  States  in  contradistinction  to  a  consolidated  nation, 
of  which  individuals  are  the  constituent  members,  and  States 
only  the  districts  or  provinces.  Kossuth,  whose  political  insight 
is  the  flash  of  genius,  and  whose  mastery  over  language  is  almost 
a  miracle,  displayed  a  more  intimate  and  profound  knowledge  of 
our  system  than  half  of  our  native-born  politicians  and  statesmen., 
when  he  characterized  us,  not  as  a  nation,  but  as  a  "  Confederate 
Republic  of  Republics." 

Look  through  the  Constitution,  and  you  will  not  find  from  begin 
ning  to  end,  from  the  preamble  to  the  clause  of  execution,  one  sin 
gle  national  phrase,  idea,  or  epithet.  The  States  are  the  dramatis 
personae,  the  actors  in  the  scene,  the  figures  that  stand  out  in  dis 
tinguished,  nay,  in  almost  exclusive  prominence.  The  govern 
ment,  the  Congress,  the  Treasury,  the  President  and  the  Vice- 
President,  are  all  of  the  u  United  States."  The  citizens  of  each 
State  are  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens 
in  the  several  States.  The  United  States  guaranty  to  each  State 
a  republican  form  of  government.  Fugitives  from  crime  or  from 
service  in  any  one  State  are  to  be  delivered  up.  And  the  whole 
was  "done  in  convention  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  States 
present."  Instances  might  be  multiplied  ;  but  these  will  suffice, 
in  the  absence  of  any  one  of  an  opposite  character,  to  show  that 
the  whole  scheme  was  federal,  and  not  national  ;  and  that  the 
States  were  recognized  as  being  "not  the  fractions  of  a  unit,  but — 
the  integers  of  a  multiple." 

But  the  Union  is  indissoluble  !  This  is  the  catchword  of  poli 
ticians,  and  the  standing  theme  of  declamation  for  Hail  Columbia 
and  Star  Spangled  Banner  travelling  orators  !  And  it  is  received 
with  immense  enthusiasm  by  those  who  find  the  Union  a  good 


12 

thing,  and  are  naturally  reluctant  to  Jose  its  benefits.  People 
who  wish  to  believe,  never  require  much  reason  for  their  belief. 
If  this  idea  of  the  indissolubility  of  the  Union  means  anything, 
it  means  that  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  cannot  be  brought  about 
in  any  other  way  than  through  the  action  of  the  people  collect 
ively,  with  or  without  arms  in  their  hands;  that  there  is  no  prac 
ticable  way  in  which  the  States,  as  sovereign  members  of  the 
Union,  can  quietly  and  peacefully  accomplish  that  result.  If  ours 
were  a  consolidated, popular  government,  such  would  undoubtedly 
be  the  case.  Let  us  bring  it,  then,  to  the  test,  and  see  whether 
there  is  any  mode  or  process  whereby  the  States  or  some  of  them, 
in  their  corporate  capacity,  and  irrespective  of  the  people  collec- 
ively,  can  arrest  the  action  of  the  government,  and  so  dissolve 
the  Union.  By  the  Constitution,  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
is  composed  of  two  Senators  from  each  State,  chosen  by  the  legis 
lature  thereof;  and  each  Senator  has  one  vote.  This  provision 
was  intended  to  illustrate  the  equality  of  the  States  as  indepen 
dent  communities  ;  for  in  the  Senate,  Rhode  Island  is  as  potent 
as  New  York.  Now  suppose  that  a  majority  of  the  States,  the 
least  populous,  if  you  please,  and  representing  but  a  small 
minority  of  the  aggregate  popular  vote,  should  refuse  through 
their  legislatures  or  their  conventions  to  choose  Senators  to  Con 
gress ;  and  that  the  executives  of  such  States  should  in  obedience 
to  the  will  of  their  people  respectively,  decline  to  make  temporary 
appointments.  What  would  be  the  result?  There  would  be  no 
Senate — and  consequently,  no  Congress,  because  "the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  shall  consist  of  a  Senate  and  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,"  and  "a  majority  of  each  House  shall  be  a  quorum 
to  do  business. "  These  are  not  mere  rules  of  procedure,  but 
constitutional  provisions.  In  the  case  supposed,  the  legislative 
powers  of  the  Union  would  cease  to  have  an  abiding  place  ;  and 
the  government  be  reduced  to  a  state  of  utter  prostration.  Here 
is  no  levying  of  war  or  shedding  of  blood;  and  no  regard  what 
soever  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  their  aggregated  or 
consolidated  character.  All  is  done  by  States,  and  done  quietly 
and  effectively.  Does  not  this  amount  to  moral  demonstration 
that  the  States  in  their  separate  capacities,  and  without  any 
regard  to  popular  numbers,  can  refuse  to  participate  in  the  gov 
ernment,  by  withholding  their  representation,  and  so,  by  a  single 
stroke  of  peaceful,  sovereign  action,  reduce  it,  at  once,  to  a  caput 
mortuum!  What  sort  of  coercion  would  be  applicable  to  such  a 
case  of  treason  to  the  Union  ?  Would  the  Sergeant  at  Arms 
summon  the  States  to  the  bar  of  the  Senate?  And  by  what 
process  could  he  compel  the  attendance  of  members  who  had 
not  been  appointed  ?  Who  would  coerce,  and  whence  would 
come  the  sinews  of  war,  without  a  Congress?  It  is  too  plain  for 
argument,  that  the  government  would  be  at  a  stand,  and  in  the 
event  of  the  persistence  of  the  States,  at  an  end.  What  a  delusion 
is  this  idea  that  the  Union  is  indissoluble,  or  that  it  cannot  be  dis- 


13 

solved,  except   by  a  revolution    of  the  people  in  mass,  or  what  is 
the  same  thing,  by  force  of  arms  ! 

Mr.  Webster,  in  his  controversy  with  Gen.  Hayne,  and  Presi 
dent  Jackson  in  his  famous  proclamation  against  South  Carolina, 
laid  great  stress  upon  the  allegations  that  the  Constitution  created 
a  government  proper,  and  that  it  established  direct  relations 
between  this  government  and  the  individual  citizens  of  the  States. 
There  is  a  class  of  statesmen  in  this  cpuntry  who,  although  they 
do  not  acknowledge  it,  believe  implicitly  in  the  divine  right  of  the 
government,  just  as  prerogative  men  in  the  old  world  believe  in 
the  right  divine  of  Kings.  And  whenever  an  opportunity  occurs, 
as  in  1832,  1851,  or  1860,  the  cloven  foot  shows  itself.  They 
clamor  for  State  rights;  but  they  are  the  advocates  of  force  and 
the  champions  of  the  inviolability  of  the  Union.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  government  is  an  institution  of  divine  origin  ;  but  this 
is  very  far  Irom  implying  that  any  particular  government  or  form 
of  government  is  either  sacred  or  necessary..  Government  consists 
of  functions,  and  functionaries  —  of  law  making,  law  expound 
ing  and  law  executing  departments;  but  far  above  these,  the 
author  and  parent  of  all  these,  is  the  Constitution-making  power — 
the  power  of  the  people  or  peoples  that  ordained  both  the  Consti 
tution  and  the  government.  How  hard  it  is  to  make  such  persons 
realize  the  idea  that  government  is  only  a  trust — an  agency; — 
not  an  end,  but  a  means  to  an  end.  Its  pomp  and  ceremonial,  its 
imposing  exhibitions  of  power  dazzle  and  betray  them.  They 
look  upon  it  as  self-existing  and  self-sustaining.  They  cannot  or 
will  not  take  it  home  to  their  understandings,  and  keep  it  there,  as 
an  elementary  eternal  truth,  that  however  it  may  be  elsewhere, 
here,  at  least,  in  these  United  States,  government  is  servant,  not 
sovereign  ;  that  its  symbols  and  insignia  are  a  borrowed  plumage; 
and  that  its  faculties  and  functions, — its  armies  and  navies,  and 
treasuries  and  tribunals,  all  belong,  not  to  its  administrators  or 
functionaries,  or  any  ideal  entity  or  entities,  but  to  those  who 
fashioned  and  delegated  them,  in  order  to  establish  justice,  insure 
domestic  tranquility,  provide  for  the  common  defence,  and  secure^ 
to  themselves  and  their  posterity  the  blessings  of  liberty  forever. 
Whatever  may  have  been  the  source  or  origin  of  other  govern 
ments,  we  know  that  the  peoples  of  these  States,  each  for  them 
selves,  made  the  government  of  the  United  States  ;  and  it  is  impos 
sible  to  escape  the  logical  inference  and  conclusion  that  the  same 
sovereign  parties  who  delegated  the  powers  and  established  the 
relations,  may,  each  for  themselves,  and  not  for  others,  recall  and 
annul  them  whenever  they  become  destructive  of  the  ends  for 
which  they  were  instituted. 

It  may  be  said  that  if  one  party  has  a  right  to  judge  of  infrac 
tions,  all  the  other  parties  have  the  same  right.  This  is  con 
ceded,  but  the  concession  does  not  carry  with  it  the  right  of  the 
government  to  compel  obedience  to  its  authority  by  force  of  arms. 
Who  are  the  other  parties  ?  The  government  of  the  United  States 


14 

did  not  make  itself,  nor  did  it  have  any  hand  in  making  itself;  it 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  formation  or  ratification  of  the  Consti 
tution  ;  it  is  only  a  result  of  the  Constitution.  As  the  States,  by 
their  peoples,  severally  and  not  collectively,  adopted  the  Consti 
tution  ;  so  must  they  each  individually  and  upon  their  own  respon 
sibility,  judge  of  infractions.  One  State  for  some  alleged  breach 
may  declare  the  compact  at  an  end,  so  far  as  relates  to  herself, 
and  choose  secession  as  her  mode  and  measure  of  redress ;  another 
State  or  States,  denying  the  alleged  breach,  may  declare  war  to 
enforce  the  observance  of  the  compact.  But  the  State  that  secedes 
becomes  ipso  facto  a  separate  power,  and,  therefore  the  war  that  is 
declared  against  her  by  her  former  co-States  becomes  like  any 
other  war  between  sovereigns.  It  is  an  international  war  ;  nothing 
more,  nothing  less.  States  and  nations  have  the  right  of  making 
war  with  each  other,  and  are  responsible  only  to  the  tribunal  of 
public  opinion.  But  this  is  a  different  thing  from  the  right  of  a 
King  or  an  Emperor  to  reduce  to  subjection  an  insurgent  prov 
ince,  or  an  integral  part  of  his  dominions  in  insurrection.  The 
government  of  the  United  States  has  no  such  kingly  or  imperial 
prerogative.  Even  in  the  case  of  the  American  revolution, 
which  was  that  of  revolting  colonies  against  the  authority  of  the 
mother  country,  those  taken  in  arms,  were  treated  not  as  traitors 
or  rebels,  but  as  prisoners  of  war. 

From  what  part  of  the  Constitution  is  derived  the  right  and 
authority  to  coerce  a  State  that  may,  through  a  convention  of  her 
people,  withdraw  herself  from  the  Union  as  her  only  means  of 
safety,  and  her  refuge  from  intolerable  oppression  ?  It  is  said 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  President  to  "  take  care  that  the  laws  be 
faithfully  executed/'  These  words,  it  is  true,  are  in  the  Consti 
tution  ;  and  upon  these  words  the  great  power  in  question  is 
founded.  But  this  is  to  beg  the  question — to  assume  the  whole 
matter  in  controversy.  I  have  already  spoken  of  the  distinction 
between  the  action  of  a  sovereign  State  and  the  action  of  unau 
thorized  combinations  of  individuals.  So  long  as  a  State  recogni 
zes  the  authority  of  the  Union,  her  citizens  have  no  choice  but  to 
obey  the  laws  of  the  United  States  ;  but,  if  according  to  our  view, 
she  may  rightfully  secede,  then,  upon  the  exercise  of  that  right, 
her  relations  with  the  Union  are  terminated,  her  delegated  author 
ities  are  resumed,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  are,  within 
her  territorial  limits,  of  no  more  virtue  or  binding  efficacy,  than 
the  laws  of  any  other  foreign  nation  whatsoever. 

But  have  we  no  historical  proofs  or  evidences  on  this  point  of 
the  power  to  dragoon  a  State?  It  could  hardly  be  supposed  that 
a  matter  of  such  magnitude  would  altogether  escape  the  attention 
of  the  convention  of  1787 ;  and  in  point  of  fact  it  did  not  escape 
attention.  The  journals  sjiow  that  the  6th  resolution  of  Edmund 
Randolph's  propositions,  provided  that  the  federal  executive 
should  have  power  "to  call  fortfi  the  force  of  the  Union  against 
any  member  of  the  Union,  failing  to  fulfil  his  duties  under  the  arti- 


15 

cles  thereof."  And  Mr.  Patterson,  also,  in  the  7th  Resolution  of 
his  propositions,  after  making  acts  and  treaties  the  supreme  law, 
provided  as  follows  :  "And  if  any  State,  or  body  of  men  in  any 
State,  shall  oppose  or  prevent  the  carrying  mto  execution  such 
acts  or  treaties,  the  federal  executives  shall  be  authorized  to  call 
forth  the  powers  of  the  Confederated  States,  or  so  much  thereof.as 
may  be  necessary,  to  compel  obedience  to  such  acts,  or  an  observ 
ance  of  such  treaties."  In  both  of  these  instances,  the  convention 
was  distinctly  invited  to  authorize  the  employment  of  the  force 
or  powers  of  the  Union  against  any  State  or  member  of  the  Union, 
that  should  fail  to  fulfil  its  duty,  or  oppose  or  prevent  the  execu 
tion  of  acts  or  treaties;  but  no  such  provision  was  inserted  in 
the  Constitution.  And  whatever  force  bills  or  bloody  bills,  Con 
gress,  in  the  folly  or  madness  of  the  time  and  in  the  fancied 
plenitude  of  its  powers,  has  thought  proper  to  enact  into  laws,  it 
has  not  yet  proceeded  to  such  a  pitch  of  infatuation,  as  to  dis 
figure  the  federal  statute  book  with  any  act  or  acts  designed 
to  coerce  the  submission,  or  compel  the  return  of  any  sovereign 
State,  that  might  solemnly  determine,  in  full  view  of  all  the  con 
sequences  and  responsibilities,  to  sever  forever  her  connection 
with  the  Union,  and  to  place  the  lives,  property  and  liberty  of 
her  citizens  under  the  protection  of  her  own  separate  sovereignty. 

When  the  foregoing  resolutions  in  relation  to  the  employment 
of  force  against  a  delinquent  State  were  under  consideration  in 
the  Convention,  the  debates  show  that  all  such  ideas  were  repu 
diated  and  abandoned,  as  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  form  of 
government  proposed  to  be  established.  No  one  single  member 
advocated  force:  all  of  them  who  spoke  on  the  subject,  even 
Alexander  Hamilton,  the  strong  government  man,  par  excellence, 
rejected  and  denounced  it.  I  propose  to  fortify  these  as'sertions 
by  citations  from  Madison's  reports  of  the  debates  in  the  Federal 
Convention  : 

Mr.  Madison  observed,  "that  the  more  he  reflected  on  the  use  of 
force,  the  more  he  doubted  the  practicability,  the  justice  and  the 
efficacy  of  it  when  applied  to  people  collectively  and  not  indivi 
dually.  An  union  of  the  States  containing  such  an  ingredient 
seemed  to  provide  for  his  own  destruction.  The  use  of  force 
against  a  State  would  look  more  like  a  declaration  of  war  than 
an  infliction  of  punishment,  and  would  be  considered  by  the 
party  attacked  as  a  dissolution  of  all  previous  compacts  by  which 
it  might  be  bound.  He  hoped  that  such  a  system  would  be 
framed  as  might  render  this  resource  unnecessary,  and  moved 
that  the  clause  be  postponed.  This  motion  was  agreed  to  nem. 
con."— I  vol.,  761. 

Mr.  Madison  again  said,  "that  any  government  for  the  United 
States,  formed  on  the  supposed  practicability  of  using  force 
against  the  unconstitutional  proceedings  of  the  States,  would 
prove  as  visionary  and  fallacious  as  the  government  of  Congress." 

"  Could  the  national  resources,  if  exerted  to  the  utmost,  enforce 


16 

a   national    decree    against    Massachusetts,  abetted,  perhaps,    by 
several  of  her  neighbors?    It  would  not  be  possible." — 1  vol. ,822. 

Alexander  Hamilton,  who  had  hitherto  "remained  silent,"  gave 
his  views  at  large  on  the  18th  June.  In  discussing  the  subject 
of force,  he  is  reported  as  follows: 

"Force,  by  which  may  be  understood  a  coercion  of  laws,  or  a 
coercion  of  ar?ns.  Congress  have  not  the  former,  except  in  few 
cases.  In  particular  States,  this  coercion  is  nearly  sufficient; 
though  he  held  it  in  most  cases  not  entirely  so.  A  certain  portion- 
of  military  force  was  absolutely  necessary  in  large  communities. 
Massachusetts  was  now  feeling  this  necessity  and  making  pro 
vision  for  it.  (The  Shay's  rebellion.)  But  how  can  this  force  be 
exerted  on  the  States  collectively?  It  is  impossible.  It  amounts 
to  a  war  between  the  parties.  Foreign  powers  also  will  not  be 
idle  spectators.  They  will  interpose,  the  donfusion  will  increase, 
and  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  will  ensue!1 — 1  vol.,  881. 

Col.  Mason  was  opposed  to  any  plan  that  could  not  be  enforced 
without  military  coercion. ^  He  is  reported  as  saying: 

"The  most  jarring  elements  of  nature,  fire  and  water  them 
selves,  are  not  more  incompatible  than  such  a  mixture  of  civil 
liberty  and  military  execution.  Will  the  militia  march  from  one 
State  jnto  another  in  order  to  collect  the  taxes  from  the  delinquent 
members  of  the  Republic  ?  Will  they  maintain  an  army  for  this 
purpose?  Will  not  the  citizens  of  the  invaded  State  assist  one 
another  till  they  rise  as  one  man  and  shake  off  the  Union  alto 
gether?  Rebellion  is  the  only  case  in  which  the  military  force 
of  the  State  can  be  properly  exerted  against  its  citizens.  He  was 
struck  with  horror  at  the  prospect  of  resorting  to  this  expedient." 
—1  vol.,  914. 

Luther  Martin  said:  u  He  was  not  against  assisting  States 
against  rebellious  subjects — thought  the  Federal  p  I  an  of  Mr.  Pat 
terson  did  not  require  coercion  more  than  the  national  one,  as  the 
latter  must  depend  for  the  deficiency  of  its  revenues  on  requisi 
tions  and  quotas." — 1  vol.,  916. 

Can  proof  go  further?  Here  is  the  evidence  that  the  employ 
ment  of  force  against  the  States  .was  distinctly  proposed;  that 
every  member  who  participated  in  the  discussion,  repudiated  it; 
and  that  the  proposition  was  postponed  and  finally  abandoned. 
The  reasons  against  it,  assigned  in  debate,  were  unanswered  and 
unanswerable;  and  well  might  the  people  of  the  States,  with  a 
knowledge  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  rest  in  security 
that  no  coercion  of  arms,  no  declaration  of  war,  as  Mr.  Madison 
properly  calls  it,  would  or  could  be  made  against  them  in  their 
sovereign  or  collective  capacity  by  the  political  machine  which 
they  called  into  action  ! 

Upon  examination  of  the  ratifications  of  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion  by  the  respective  State  Conventions,  it  appears  that  several 
of  them  asserted,  in  unequivocal  language,  the  right  of  the  people 
to  resume  the  powers  granted,  whenever  the  same  should  be  per- 


17 

verted  10  their  injury  or  oppression.  Nor  does  any  exception 
appear  to  have  been  taken  to  such  declarations.  It  was  with  this 
impression  and  upon  this  condition  that  the  States  ratified  the 
Constitution;  and  when  some  States  affirmed  the  right  expressly, 
it  was  done  only  from  abundant  caution,  and  as  declaratory  of  the 
common  understanding.  No  one  State  could  "have,  or  reserve,  a 
right  that  was  not  common  to  all;  any  other  construction  would 
be  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  the  States  entered  the  Union 
upon  terms  of  equality.  "The  people,"  in  whose  behalf,  the  right 
was  claimed,  were,  of  course,  the  people  of  the  States  respect 
ively;  for  there  is  not  the  slightest  foundation  in  fact  or  Jiistory 
for  the  pretence  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  the  aggre 
gate  granted  any  powers  a.t  all,  or  that  the  powers  of  the  Federal 
Government  were  derived  from  any  other  source  whatever  than 
the,  peoples  of  the  several  States,  who  accepted  and  ratified  the 
same.  In  this  point  of  view,  the  argument  seems  to  lie  in  a  very 
small  compass.  Once  admit  the  principle,  which  no  one  in  the 
country  denies,  that  the  people  have  the  right  to  resume  granted 
powers  when  perverted  or  abused;  and  then  admit  the  fact,  which 
is  historical  and  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  people  of  the  States, 
respectively,  each  for  themselves,  granted  the  powers  now  exer 
cised  by  the  Federal  Government — and  the  inference  is  logical 
and  irresistible,  that  the  people  of  any  State,  acting  for  them 
selves,  may  recall  the  authorities  they  delegated,  whenever,  in 
their  solemn  judgment,  their  honor  or  their  safety  demands  it. 
This  is  not  a  question  of  arresting  the  operations  of  a  Government 
while  you  remain  a  member  of  it;  but  it  is  a  question  of  resum 
ing  powers  granted  for  beneficial  purposes,  but  wrested  to  pur-  - 
poses  of  oppression,  and  of  peaceably  dissolving  connection  with 
a  Confederated  Government,  when  that  Government  has  ceased 
to  answer  the  ends  of  confederation.  In  other  words,  it  is  not  a 
question  of  nullification;  it  is  a  question  of  secession  or  resump 
tion.  The  science  of  government  has  made  but  little  advance  in 
America  if  a  sovereign  State  cannot  retire  from  a  Confederacy  of 
States,  in  which  she  feels  herself  dishonored  and  oppressed,  with 
out  the  iron  arm  of  power  being  employed  to  crush  her  to  sub 
mission.  If  this  be  so,  it  will  show  that  here,  as  in  Europe, 
liberty  can  be  had  only  at  the  price  of  blood.  But  this  much  is 
certain  :  that  here,  at  least,  liberty  will  be  had  at  whatever  price  ! 

The  delegates  of  New  York,  in  their  ratification,  ''declare  and 
make  known :" 

"  Tha\  all  power  is  originally  vested  in,  and  consequently  de 
rived  from  the  people,  and  that  government  is  instituted  by  them 
for  their  common  interest,  security  and  protection. 

(l  That  the  powers  of  government  may  be  reassumed  by  the  people 
whenever  it  shall  became  necessary  to  their  happiness ;  that  every 
power,  jurisdiction  and  right,  which  is  not  by  the  said  Constitu 
tion  clearly  delegated  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  or  the 
departments  of  the  Government  thereof,  remains  to  the  people  of  the 
p2 


18 

several  States,  or  to  their  respective  State  Governments,  to  whom  they 
may  have  granted  the  same,"  etc.,  etc. 

The  New  York  Convention  certainly  stated  the  case  with  great 
precision  and  clearness.  All  power  is  derived  from  the  people  ; 
Congress  has  no  power  except  what  is  clearly  delegated ;  all 
power  nor.  delegated  remains  to  the  people  of  the  several  States,  or 
their  State  Governments;  and  the  people  may  reassume  all  granted 
power  whenever  it  shall  be  necessary  for  their  Happiness.  There 
could  not  be  a  clearer  epitome  of  the  doctrine  of  secession  or 
resumption.  And  that  there  might  be  no  mistake  or  misunder 
standing  in  the  matter,  the  delegates  say,  in  conclusion  :  "  Under 
these  impressions,  and  declaring  that  the  rights  aforesaid  cannot  be 
abridged  or  violated,  and  that  the  explanations  aforesaid  are  consistent 
with  the  said  Constitution,  fyc.}  we  assent  to  and  ratify  the  said 
Constitution. 

It  must  be  observed  that  these  are  not  proposed  amendments  of 
the  Constitution,  but  declarations  of  right  and  of  the  common  un 
derstanding  in  relation  to  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution.  New 
York  proposes  her  amendments  in  a  separate  paper. 

Virginia  in  her  ratification  declares  and  makes  known  : 

"That  the  powers  granted  under  the  Constitution,  being  de 
rived  from  the  people  of  the  United  States,  may  be  resumed  by 
them,  whenever  the  same  shall  be  perverted  to  their  injury  or  op 
pression,  and  that  every  power  not  granted  thereby,  remains  with 
them  and  at  their  will."  *«  With  these  impressions,  and  with  a 
solemn  appeal  to  the  Searcher  of  hearts,"  &c.,  she  assents  to  and 
ratifies  the  Constitution.  She  also  proposes  amendments  in  a 
separate  paper.  ^ 

Virginia  speaks  of  "the  people  of  the  United  Stales."  There 
is  not  the  same  precision  of  language  as  in  the  New  York  ratifi 
cation.  But  the  meaning  is  identical  ;  for,  as  the  people  of  the 
United  States  collectively  granted  no  powers,  they  could  resume 
none.  Only  those  who  give  can  take  back.  The  people  of  the 
States  were  the  grantors,  and  they  alone  had  anything  to  resume. 
The  reference  of  Virginia  was  to  these  people  whom  the  Constitu 
tion  was  to  unite.  She  spoke  in  the  name  of  and  in  behalf  of  her 
own  people. 

Rhode  Island  declares  and  makes  known  : 

"  That  all  power  is  naturally  vested  in  and  consequently  derived 
from  the  people — that  magistrates  therefore  are  their  trustees  and 
agents,  and  at  all  times  amenable  to  them. 

"  That  the  powers  of  government  may  be  reassumed  by  the  people, 
whensoever  it  shall  become  necessary  to  their  happiness.'" 

Has  any  one  the  hardihood  to  contend  that  these  solemn  decla 
rations  mean  nothing,  or  mean  only  the  right  of  revolution  by 
force  and  with  arms?  On  the. contrary,  do  they  not  affirm  and 
illustrate  the  one  great  leading  distinction  between  the  American 
and  the  European  theory  of  government — between  a  free  confed 
erated  republic  and  a  consolidated  kingdom  or  empire  ?  Euro- 


pean  government  is  the  government  of  force ;  American  gov 
ernment  is  the  government  of  opinion.  If  such  be  not  the  case, 
then  did  the  men  of  the  Revolution  live  and  rebel  and  triumph  in 
vain  ! 

The  question  has  been  asked,  whether  Louisiana  and  other 
States,  whose  territories  were  originally  purchased  by  the  United 
States  for  a  price,  can 'possibly  have  the  right  to  withdraw  them 
selves  from  the  Union,  and  take  their  affairs  into  their  own  keep 
ing?  Undoubtedly  they  have  !  When  they  were  erected  into 
States,  they  became  sovereign,  and  when  received  into  the  Union, 
they  came  in  upon  precisely  the  same  footing  as  the  original 
Thirteen.  There  can  be  no  discrimination  between  an  old  and  a 
new  State  ;  nor  can  the  rights  of  the  original  members  of  the  con 
federacy,  be  in  any  way  impaired  or  affected  by  the  admission  of 
new  ones.  The  question  must  be  determined  upon  the  terms  and 
meaning  of  the  Constitution,  or  fundamental  compact,  and  not 
upon  any  supervening  facts  or  developments.  When  a  Territory 
becomes  a  State,  the  pupil  or  infant  attains  the  age,  and  assumes 
the  character  and  attributes  of  the  full-grown  man.  When  a  new 
comer  is  admitted  into  a  copartnership,  upon  a  footing  of  perfect 
equality,  it  matters  not  whether  he  has  brought  into  the  concern 
capital,  or  skill,  or  labor,  or  any  other  consideration.  The  United 
States  must  weigh  the  consequences  of  the  act,  before  they  convert 
a  Territory  into  a  State,  and  invest  a  dependency  with  the  rights 
and  faculties  of  sovereignty.  *flfter  the  act  is  done,  it  is  too  late 
to  consider.  The  new-born  commonwealth  is  the  counterpart  and 
peer  of  all  the  rest  ! 

The  Union  of  these  States  is  a  voluntary  union — an  association  / 
of  equals,  of  their  free  will  and  by  common  afccord.  A  State  / 
coerced,  would  be  a  subjugated  province;  .no  longer  a  voluntary 
or  an  equal  member,  but  the  conquest  and  the  captive  of  the  rest! 
With  her  freedom  cloven  down,  and  the  emblems  of  her  sover 
eignty  trampled  under  foot  and  trailing  in  the  dust,  her  lifeless 
body  would  be  to  the  living  members  of  the  Union,  like  the  dead 
body  of  Hector,  dragged  in  brutal  triumph  by  the  victorious 
chariot  of  Achilles  round  the  walls  of  Troy  !  Better  that  the  last 
sparkles  of  her  ashes  were  trodden  out,  and  her  name  forever  lost 
to  history  and  tradition,  than  that  she  should  live  to  swell  the 
triumph  of  her  conquerors!  And  this  to  preserve  the  Union  !  A 
union  of  the  living  and  the  dead^  bound  fast  together  in  loathsome 
and  indissoluble  contact!  Say  rather  a  union  of  the  dying  and 
the  dead,  for  the  life  of  all  will  have  received  a  mortal  thrust, 
their  independence  but  a  name,  their  forms  of  liberty  an  insult 
ing  mockery,  and  their  only  privilege  that  of  surviving  until  the 
iron  heel  of  one  or  many  despots  shaU  be  ready  in  turn  to  crush 
out  the  miserable  remainder  of  their  existence  ! 

Such  and  so  disastrous  would  be  the  effect  of  coercion,  even  if 
successful.  But  it  could  not  be  successful, — least  of  all  in  a  case 
of  common  feeling  and  common  interest.  The  people  of  the  States 


are  too  spirited  and  sagacious,  not  to  feel  and  know  that  the  mili 
tary  conquest  of  one,  in  such  a  case,  would  involve,  sooner  or  later,, 
the  military  conquest  of  the  rest.  The  ties  of  a  common  cause — 
one  hope,  one  fear,  one  destiny  ;  the  promptings  of  generous 
manhood,  and  perhaps,  above  all,  the  over-mastering  instinct  of 
self-preservation,  would  drive  them  into  irresistible  sympathy 
and  association  with  those,  whose  only  fault  would  be  a  disinter 
ested,  if  an  indiscreet,  devotion  to  the  common  cause,  and  whose 
prostration  would  consign  it  to  hopeless  and  bloody  ruin.  And  if 
the  grievance  or  the  quarrel  were  strictly  and  purely  sectional, 
what  human  power,  in  the  event  of  blood,  could  prevent  the  injured 
section  from  uniting  as  one  man,  and  accepting  one  fate,  whether 
for  weal  or  for  wo  !  Is  it  not  the  excess  of  infatuation,  and  the 
very  extacy  of  madness  for  any  one  to  imagine  that  the  Union 
could  be  preserved  through  a  war  of  sections  ?  Blood  is  not  the 
cement  by  which  confederacies  are  held  together,  nor  are  bayon 
ets  the  instruments.  Good  will  and  confidence  are  their  only 
bond.  The  terrible  passions  evoked  by  war  are  death  to  them. 
Naught  but  a  despotism  can  come  out  of  an  armed  conflict  of 
sections,  in  which  one  is  conqueror  and  the  other  conquered.  On 
one  side  centralization  and  absorption,  enforced  by  the  sword; 
on  the  other,  utter  subjugation,  relieved  only  by  the  lurid  and 
desperate  hope  of  revolt !  What  a  picture  this  of  a  free  govern 
ment  !  and  a  happy  and  glorious  Union  ! 

[Hapless  would  be  the  condition  of  these  States  if  their  only 
alternative  lay  between  submission  to  a  government  of  self-con 
strued,  or,  in  other  words,  unlimited  powers,  and  the  certainty  of 

t  coercion,  in  case  of  withdrawal,  by  force  of  arms.  The  way  of 
escape  from  borli  extremes  is  in  the  acknowledged  right  of  seces 
sion — a  right  the  exercise  of  which  draws  after  it  such  grave  and 

"""momentous  consequences  to  a  State,  in  her  relations  to  i>he  resl  of 
the°States  and  to  the  world  at  large,  that  she  cannot  but  regard  it 
as  her  ultima  ratio — her  refuge  from  intolerable  evils — her  last 
and  ultimate  resource  to  be  called  into  play,  only  when  all  other 
hope  of  relief  is  utterly  gone  ! 

But  if  the  right  of  secession  be  essential  in  a  general  view  of 
our  system,  how  truly  indispensable  is  it  to  the  Southern  States, 
in  view  of  the  particular  circumstances  by  which  they  are  now 
surrounded.  I  here  repeat  the  question  already  propounded,  are 
not  the  designs  of  the  Republican  party  aggressive,  hostile  and 
deadly  to  these  States?  To  understand  this  question  in  its  full 
and  fearful  import,  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  coun 
try  is  divided  into  two  geographical  sections,  and  that  these  sec 
tions  are  characterized  by  separate  and  different  systems  of  labor 
and  civilization.  The  system  of  the  South,  known  as  slavery, 
existed  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  Union,  and  has  a  dis 
tinct  recognition  in  the  Constitution,  both  as  an  element  of  repre 
sentation,  and  as  a  lit  subject  of  protection.  For  a  considerable 
eriod  of  time,  the  two  sections  of  the  country  were,  for  all  prac- 


21 

tical  purposes)  in  a  state  of  equilibrium;  but  now  the  ascendancy 
in  the  number  of  States  and  in  the  federal  representation  has 
been  acquired  by  the  non-slaveholding  section.  If  there  were  no 
antagonism  of  feeling  and  interest  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and 
the  constitutional  guarantees  in  relation  to  it  were  observed  in 
good  faith  and  with  fidelity,  this  ascendancy  would  furnish  no 
good  cause  of  apprehension  or  complaint.  But  the  precise  mis 
chief  and  danger  of  the  Republican  party  consists  in  this:  that 
IT  IS  A  SECTIONAL,  ANTI-SLAVERY  ORGANIZATION, 
BASED  CHIEFLY,  IF  NOT  EXCLUSIVELY,  ON  THE 
PRINCIPLE  OF  HOSTILITY  TO  THE  INSTITUTIONS  OF 
THE  SOUTH,  AND  PLEDGED  TO  CARRY  THAT  PRIN 
CIPLE  INTO  ACTION,  IN  THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF 
THE  GOVERNMENT.  Men  of  the  South  do  you  comprehend 
this  idea?  Do  you  take  it  into  your  understandings,  in  the  whole 
extent  of  its  significance  and  consequences.  In  the  case  of  two 
sections  and  two  systems  of  labor  and  civilization,  what  would 
any  man  of  average  honesty  and  average  sense  of  justice,  declare 
to  be  the  duty  of  the  common  federal  government?  Surely  that 
of  equal  favor  and  equal  protection!  But  to  wage  an  open  war 
fare  upon  system  and  by  programme,  in  behalf  of  one  and  against 
the  other — and  to  employ,  for  that  purpose,  the  agencies  and 
resources  of  the  common  government,  which  owes  to  each  a  like 
protection  because  it  receives  from  each  a  like  support — if  there 
be  a  peril  more  imminent,  or  a  perfidy  more  atrocious  than  this, 
in  the  affairs  of  State,  it  is  most  difficult  for  the  human  imagina 
tion  to  conceive  it,  or  the  human  tongue  to  give  it  utterance  ! 

Will  you  submit  to  it?  Will  you  suffer  that  yoke  to  be  fast 
ened  upon  your  necks,  and  still  claim  to  be  men  and  freemen  ? 
You  have  Ions:  borne  and  forborne — but  there  is  a  time  when 
submission  becomes  a  crime  and  resistance  a  duty.  Abraham 
Lincoln,  our  prospective  President,  proclaims  the  Republican 
party  to  be  "a  progressive  party.'"  Mark  the  words,  for  there 
is  more  in  them  than  meets  the  ear — something  of  admonition 
and  menace  !  How  progressive  has  been  this  whole  anti-slavery 
agitation — this  whole  warfare — for  it  is  nothing  less — against  the 
well  being,  the  peace,  nay,  the  very  lives  of  millions  of  human 
beings,  white  and  black  !  It  began  with  individuals.  Garrison, 
Tappan  and  Gerrit  Smith  w^re  of  the  school.  At  first,  we  were 
told  to  despise  their  insane  ravings;  and  we  can  well  remember 
the  day  when  abolitionists  were  hooted  and  pelted,  and  driven 
from  pillar  to  post  in  the  Northern  cities.  They  persisted;  and 
by  degrees  their  doctrines  infected  larger  bodies  of  men.  They 
forced  themselves  upon  popular  assemblies,  and  soon  invaded  the 
school  room  and  the  school  book,  the  yulpit  and  the  prayer.  The 
leaven  spread  itself.  Women,  and  clergymen  and  politicians 
took  it  in  keeping,  and  nursed  it,  and  kepi,  it  warm.  With  some 
it  was  genuine  fanaticism;  with  others  a  sanctimonious  and 
Pharisaical  hypocrisy — an  outcropping  of  puriu**jsm;  and  with 


22 

others  still,  the  football  of  a  political  game.  In  process  of  time, 
the  spirit  of  abolitionism  rose  in  power  and  in  dignity.  It  lifted 
itself  into  the  halls  of  legislation.  It  has  since  taken  possession 
of  the  State  governments  at  the  North.  Every  Northern  State, 
east  of  the  llocky  mountains,  has  wilfully  and  deliberately  refused  to 
carry  into  effect  the  provision  of* the  Constitution  in  relation  to  the 
restoration  of  fugitive  slaves  ;  some  by  prohibiting  their  officers 
and  citizens  from  aiding  in  their  restitution  ;  some  by  denying 
the  use  of  the  jails  and  public  edifices  for  their  safe  keeping  ; 
some  by  providing  means  of  defence  for  fugitives  from  labor; 
some  by  declaring  slaves  absolutely  free  when  brought  into  the 
State;  and  some  by  visiting  fine  and  imprisonment  upon  masters 
seeking  to  reclaim  their  property  :  thus  bringing  into  play  every 
device  and  variety  of  legislative  action,  in  encouragement  and 
support  of  the  inhospitable,  lawless  and  piratical  conduct  of  their 
citizens  and  mobs.  And  now,  that  the  last  element  of  strength 
and  agency  of  mischief  may  not  be  wanting  to  this  unnatural 
warfare,  waged  by  one  section  of  the  country  against  the  vital 
interests  of  the  other,  the  common  federal  government,  our  own 
government,  which  was  designed  to  insure  domestic  quiet  and 
provide  for  the  common  defence,  is  to  be  seized  and  appropriated 
by  an  exclusive,  one-sided  and  fanatical  despotism,  whose  only 
idea  and  purpose  it  is,  (apart  from  the  spoils,)  to  wield  the  whole 
of  this  vast  and  powerful  machinery  for  the  disturbance  of  our 
peace,  the  subverting  of  our  institutions,  industrial  and  social, 
and  the  subjection  of  ourselves  and  our  children,  in  all  time  to 
come,  to  the  vexatious  and  degrading  tyrannies  of  their  vulgar 
and  unprincipled  domination.  No  foreign  government,  however 
hostile  its  intents,  could  be  more  malignant  in  spirit,  or  more 
powerful  for  mischief! 

.  How  can  we  judge  of  this  Republican  party  otherwise  or  more 
fairly  than  by  their  own  acts  and  declarations  ?  What  they  have 
done  is  but  an  earnest  of  what  they  will  do.  The  persistent  agi 
tation  of  the  slavery  question  in  the  most  offensive  and  insidious 
forms;  the  exclusion  of  the  South  from  the  whole  of  California — 
a  territory  for  which  the  South  had  expended  more  of  blood  and 
treasure  than  any  other  section  of  the  Union;  the  dismemberment 
of  Texas,  with  the  bayonet  in  one  hand  and  a  bribe  in  the  other; 
the  rejection  of  Kansas  because  the  Constitution  of  Lecompton 
protected  slavery;  the  raid  into  Virginia,  the  burnings  and  poi 
sonings  in  Texas,  and  the  movements,  incendiary  and  insurrec 
tionary,  of  Northern  emissaries  even  now  lurking  in  other  parts 
of  the  Southern  country;  the  sympathy  with  John  Brown,  at  first 
hardly  disguised,  but  now  open  and  unmasked — a  sympathy 
which  is  calculated,  if  not  expressly  designed,  to  incite  other 
deluded  fanatics  to  an  imitation  of  his  treason  and  a- coveting  of 
his  traitorous  doom  :  the  endorsement  of  the  atrocious  Helper 
book  by  some  sixtj  members  of  their  party  in  the  present  Con 
gress,  and  the  Broadcast  circulation  of  it  as  one  of  their  campaign 


28 

documents,  in  the  current  canvass — .all  these  things,  and  morey 
many  more,  which  it  sickens  rue  to  rehearse,  demonstrate, 
beyond  all  doubt  or  cavil,  a  hostility  of  purpose,  an  antagonism 
of  spirit  and  feeling,  a  deep  and  settled  hate  which,  so  far  from 
being1  consistent  with  the  duties  and  relations  of  brethren  and 
fellow  countrymen,  would  be  a  shame  and  a  disgrace  to  natural 
and  hereditary  foes  ! 

William  H.  Seward  is  the  spokesman  of  this  party — the  author 
and  finisher  of  the  Black  Republican  faith  !  He  is  a  statesman  ot 
clear  and  well-defined,  but  not  large  views,  and  his  vision  is  as  accu 
rate  and  thorough,  within  his  limited  range,  as  that  of  any  man  ot 
his  day  and  country.  Cold,  sagacious  and  calculating;  too  conti 
nent  and  self-possessed  to  be  rash,  and  yet  bold  enough  when 
boldness  is  consistent  with  prudence.  He  is  the  author  of  the 
phrase,  if  not  of  the  idea,  of  "  the  irrepressible  conflict  between 
opposing  and  enduring  forces;"  and  also  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
"higher  law" — the  invention  of  a  vagrant  political  conscience 
to  override  all  fixed  constitutional  obligation,  for  the  express  pur 
poses  of  putting  under  foot  the  rights  of  the  South,  and  the  duties 
of  the  North  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  He  sneers,  in  cold  blood, 
at  Virginia  and  Texas,  for  being  "convulsed  with  panics  because 
of  slavery  being  brought  into  debate  among  a  portion  of  their  citi 
zens  I"  The  foundation  principle  of  his  theory  is,  that  free  labor 
and  slave  labor  cannot  exist  under  the  same  government;  and 
that  "the  United  States  must,  and  will,  sooner  or  later,  become  a 
slave  holding  nation,  or  entirely  a  free  labor  nation."  To  the  end 
that  the  latter  branch  of  this  necessary  alternative  may  be  the  final 
consummation,  he  demands  that  every  new  State  shall  be  a  free 
State;  that  the  army  and  navy  shall  be  abolished,  because  they 
are  of  no  service  except  to  protect  the  slave  States  from  servile 
insurrection  or  foreign  invasion  ;  that  the  Supreme  Court  shall  be 
destroyed  or  altogether  reformed,  and  arrayed  on  the  side  of  free 
dom  instead  of  the  side  of  slavery;  and  that  the  perfect  freedom 
of  all  men,  black  as  well  as  white,  should  go  through  the  fifteen 
slave  States,  as  it  has  gone  through  the  eighteen  free  States. 
And  he  declares  to  his  followers  that  "  if  they  do  not  suffer  differ 
ences  among  themselves  or  any  other  cause  to  divide  them,  ONE 
SINGLE  ADMINISTRATION  WILL  SETTLE  THIS  QUES 
TION  'FINALLY  AND  FOREVER."  In  anticipation  of  the 
coming  triumph,  already  has  he  proclaimed  that  the  battle  is  ended, 
and  the  victory  won  ! 

Abraham  Lincoln  is  the  standard-bearer  of  the  party.  He  was 
considered  the  more  available  as  their  candidate,  because  his 
antecedents  were  not  so  conspicuous  as  those  of  his  great  master. 
But  he  is  the  more  dangerous  of  the  t\vo,  because  he  is  probably 
the  more  honest  in  his  convictions.  The  one  idea  certainly  has 
complete  possession  of  his  brain.  Some  have  advanced  his  claim 
to  the  original  authorship  of  the  "irrepressible  conflict;"  without 
using  the  phrase,  he  certainly  promulgated  the  doctrine  when  he 


24 

declared,  in  1858,  that  "this  government  cannot  endure  perma 
nently  half  slave  and  half  free."  Let  it  suffice  for  the  present 
that  Mr.  Douglas  define  the  political  position  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
which  he  did  in  the  following  words,  in  the  course  of  their  great 
senatorial  contest :  f 

"  In  other  words,  Mr.  Lincoln  ADVOCATES  BOLDLY  AND  CLEARLY,  a 
war  of  sections,  a  ivar  of  the  North  a  gainst  the  South,  of  free  States 
against  slave  States — a  war  of  extermination — to  be  continued 
relentlessly,  until  the  one  or  the- other  shall  be  subdued,  and  all 
the  States  shall  either  become  free  or  slave." 

j  And  this  same  Mr.  Douglas  proposes  to  put  the  South  to  fire 
and  sword,  because  it  would  retire  peacefully  from  the  field,  rather 
than  become  a  party  to  this  fratricidal  strife  ot  sections,  or  a  meek 

...And  submissive  victim  to  this  relentless  war  of  extermination  ! 

Men  of  the  South  !  you  will  soon  be  called  to  make  choice  ot 
your  destiny, — to  bow  your  proud  necks  to  the  yoke  of  the  task 
master,  or  to  rise  in  your  strength  and  rend  the  manacles  that 
would  bind  you.  It  is  not  a  question  of  policy;  but  of  honor,  of 
liberty,  of  peace,  of  existence  !  Your  whole  civilization  is  at 
stake !  It  cannot  be  disguised  that  there  is  danger  on  Doth  sides  ; 
but  on  one  side  is  honor,  on  the  other  dishonor;  on  one  side  the 
sure  hope  of  freedom  and  prosperity;  on  the  other,  the  certa'n 
doom  of  demoralization  and  ruin.  In  the  folly  and  madness  that 
rule  the  hour,  an  attempt  maybe  made  to  coerce  you;  but  it 
cannot  possibly  succeed.  You  are  millions  in  number;  but  your 
hearts  arid  arms  will  be  as  one  in  defending  the  sanctity  of  your 
hearths  and  homes  !  To  a  people  who  have  once  been  free,  any 
thing  is  better  than  the  living  death  of  conscious  degradation,  and 
the  withering  contempt  of  those  who  have  put  the  yoke  upon 
them.  Oh!  choose  as  becomes  your  lineage  and  your  history! 
Choose  so  that  these  proud  commonwealths  rrray  receive  no  detri 
ment;  so  that  the  liberties  in  which  you  were  born  may  be  kept 
entire;  so  that  the  heritage  of  your  children  may  be  one  of  honor 
and  not  of  shame,  of  freedom  and  not  or  servitude  ! 


LETTER 

FROM 

HON.  J.  K.  PAULDING. 


[The  following  letter  from  Hon.  J.  K.  Paulding,  former  Secre 
tary  of  the  Navy,  is  worthy  of  attention,  not  only  for  the  sound 
views  it  contains,  but  also  on  account  of  the  latitude  from  which 
it  comes.] 

HYDE  PARK,  Duchess  county,  N.  Y.  ) 
September  6th,  1851.      j 

GENTLEMEN  :  Your  letter  directed  to  me  at  New  York,  con 
veying  an  invitation  to  address  a  meeting  of  the  citizens  of 
Charleston  district,  to  be  held  in  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  on 
the  17th  inst.,  has  just  reached  me  at  this  place,  where  I  now 
reside. 

For  the  compliment  thus  tendered,  and  the  language  in  which 
it  is  conveyed,  I  beg  you  to  accept  my  acknowledgments,  accom 
panied  by  regrets  that  I  cannot  comply  with  your  wishes.  Dis 
tance  and  space,  the  burden  of  years  I  should  bear  with  me,  and 
more  than  all,  my  incapacity  for  public  speaking,  compel  me  to 
decline  a  task  for  which  I  am  totally  unfitted.  What  T  have  to 
say,  I  therefore  hope  you  will  permit  me  to  address  to  you,  through 
a  medium  to  which  I  am  more  accustomed. 

As  it  appears  from  the  tenor  ot  your  letter  that  you  are 
already  sufficiently  aware  of  the  opinion  I  entertain  with 
regard  to  what  is  whimsically  called  the  Compromise,  I  will 
only  trouble  you  with  a  brief  recapitulation.  In  my  view  it 
was  a  gross  and  palpable  violation  of  that  great  fundamental  prin 
ciple  of  State  equality,  which  pervades  every  provision  of  the  Consti 
tution,  and  forms  the  basis  of  this  Confederation  ;  a  most  unjustifi 
able  attack  on  the  rights,  interests,  safety,  and  happiness  of  one-half 
the  States  composing  it,  accompanied  by  insult  and  obloquy  ;  a  pre 
tended  concession,  wrested  by  mere  force  of  numbers  from  a  minority; 
and  that,  in  its  consequences,  it  will  prove  more  fatal  to  the  repose, 
prosperity,  and  happiness,  if  not  the  very  existence  of  the  Union, 


than  any  measures  that  may  be  resorted  to  in  attempting  to  obtain 
redress  for  the  past,  or  security  for  the  future. 

Such  beinjr  my  views  of  the  subject,  I  am  and  always  have 
been,  of  opinion,  that  the  stand  originally  taken  by  South  Caro 
lina,  and  most  of  the  Southern  States,  in  opposition  to  the  princi 
ples  embodied  in  that  series  of  measures,  was  not  only  justifiable, 
but  demanded  by  a  proper  regard  for  their  rights  and  their  honor  ; 
and  that  an  abandonment  of  the  position  they  then  assumed,  and 
an  acquiescence  in  measures  they  repeatedly  declared  they 
would  resist,  "  at  all  hazards  arid  to  the  last  extremity,"  unless 
accompanied  by  a  frank  acknowledgment  of  having  been  wrong  in 
the  first  instance,  would,  in  the  language  of  the  printed  resolu 
tions  appended  to  your  letter,  be,  "what  they  could  not  submit 
to  without  dishonor/'  If  such  an  abandonment  of  all  previous 
pledges  and  declarations  were  the  result  of  a  subsequent  convic 
tion  of  having  greatly  erred  in  making  them,  it  would  be  'honor 
able  and,  magnanimous.  But  such  appears  not  to  be  the  case  j 
since  even  the  advocates  of  acquiescence  still  continue  to  assert 
the  principles  on  which  these  pledges  and  declarations  were 
based,  as  well  as  the  wrongs  which  first  called  them  forth. 

The  Association  is,  I  believe,  right  in  its  second  resolution — 
declaring  its  belief  that  the  co-operation  of  any  of  the  Southern 
States  with  South  Carolina,  either  in  resistance  or  secession,  is  at 
least  improbable,  so  long  as  the  influence  and  patronage  of  the 
General  Government  are  arrayed  against  State  rights.  Nor  do  I 
see  any  reason  for  believing  that  any  probable  change  of  admin 
istration  will  produce  a  change  of  measures;  since,  as  you  will 
perceive,  from  their  repeated  declarations,  all  parties  in  the  North 
unite  in  denouncing  slavery,  and  maintaining  the  constitutional 
right  of  Congress,  as  well  as  its  inflexible  duty,  to  prohibit  its 
extension  to  any  State  that  may  hereafter  be  admitted  into  the 
Union.  From  all  present  appearances,  the  principles  embodied  in 
the  compromise  will  continue  to  be  the  basis  of  the  future  policy  of 
the  Government.  It  seems  also  probable,  that  the  States  which 
have  submitted  to  past,  will  be  equally  quiescent  under  future 
wrongs. 

Having  thus  briefly  stated  my  views  with  regard  to  your  first 
and  second,  I  will  now  revert  to  your  last  and  most  important 
resolution,  namely,  "that,  failing  in  a  reasonable  time  to  obtain 
the  co-operation  of  other  Southern  States,  South  Carolina  should 
alone  withdraw  from  the  Union/' 

It  seems  rather  late  in  the  day  to  be  called  on  to  combat  the 
old  exploded  doctrine  of  passive  obedience,  and  non-resistance  y 
the  assertion  of  which  cost  one  monarch  his  head,  and  sent 
another  into  perpetual  exile.  Yet,  as  that  doctrine  has  lately 
been  revived  by  some  of  the  highest  names  of  the  Republic,  it 
calls  for  a  passing  notice  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  this 
letter.  It  seems  strange,  too,  that  this  long-buried  monster, 
which  received  its  death  wounds  in  the  two  revolutions  of  Eng- 


27 

land  and  America,  should  have  been  dug  up  and  resuscitated  by 
distinguished  Democratic  Republican  statesmen.  From  all  but 
the  darkest  regions  of  the  civilized  world,  this  portentous  phan 
tom  has  been  banished,  as  it  would  appear,  only  to  find  refuse  in 
that  which  professes  to  be  the  most  free  and  enlightened.  There 
is  not  a  European  writer,  or  statesman,  or  theologist,  of  any  estab 
lished  reputation,  that  would  now  venture  to  proclaim  the  slavish 
principles  which  have  been  asserted  by  Republican  leaders  in  the 
Halls  of  Congress  of  Republican  States. 

A  thorough  discussion  of  this  doctrine  of  passive  obedience 
and  non-resistance  on  the  part  of  equal  members  of  a  Confedera 
tion  of  States,  would  require  more  space  than  is  proper  for  me  to 
occupy,  and  more  time  than  you  can  spare  on  this  occasion ;  nor 
do  I  deem  it  necessary.  The  right  of  resistance  by  force,  as 
respects  States  and  communities,  is  only  an  extension  of  the 
individual  right  of  self-defence,  which  is  a  law  of  nature,  ante 
cedent  and  paramount  to  all  laws  and  all  constitutions,  which 
cannot  be  alienated  or  surrendered  by  the  adoption  of  any  system 
of  social  organization.  This  doctrine  is  established  beyond  con 
troversy,  by  the  unanswered  and  unanswerable  arguments  of 
Sidney  and  Locke  ;  by  the  assent  of  all  the  great  ancient  as  well 
as  modern  authorities  on  the  law  of  nature  and  nations;  and,  if 
such  were  not  the  case,  it  has  always  been,  and  always  will  be, 
acted  upon  when  the  occasion  arises,  in  opposition  to  all  authori 
ties.  It  is  true  that  nope  of  the  writers  who  assert  or  concede 
the  right  of  resistance,  have  attempted  to  define  the  precise  line 
where  resistance  becomes  justifiable,  because  it  is  not  susceptible 
of  definition.  It  is  a  matter  of  feeling,  and  can  neither  be  analyzed 
or  defined. 

An  eminent  American  statesman,  high  in  office,  and  a  candi 
date  for  still  higher  honors,  whose  opinions  [  wish  to  treat  with 
all  due  respect,  has  lately  attempted  to  establish  a  broad  distinc 
tion  between  revolution  and  secession  ;  in  other  words,  the  right 
to  resist,  and  the  right  of  retiring  out  of  the  reach  of  the  necessity 
of  resorting  to  resistance.  His  position,  if  I  rightly  comprehend 
him,  is,  that  though  a  people  or  State  may  have  a  right  to  resist 
by  force  in  certain  contingencies,  they  have  none  to  retire  peace 
ably  beyond  the  reach  of  injury  and  oppression.  It  seems  they 
have  no  alternative;  they  must  either  peaceably  submit,  or  for 
cibly  resist,  for  they  cannot  get  out  of  the  way.  It  follows  that 
all  radical  changes  in  the  political  relations  of  a  State  with  a 
Confederation  of  States,  must  necessarily  be  brought  about  by 
violence  and  bloody  contentions.  Those  who  cannot  live  together 
in  peace,  must  not  part  in  peace  ;  they  must  resort  to  the  right  of 
the  strongest,  and  fight  it  out. 

Thus  the  extermination  of  a  portion  of  our  fellow-creatures, 
perhaps  our  countrymen,  is  an  indispensable  preliminary  to  all 
great  political  changes;  and  hecatombs  must  be  offered  up  on 
the  altar  of  liberty,  before  she  can  become  a  legitimate  goddess. 


28 

The  establishment  of  this  principle,  conceding  the  right  of  revo 
lution,  and  denying  that  of  secession,  would,  in  its  application  to 
the  case  now  under  consideration,  leave  no  resource  to  any  mem 
ber  of  this  confederation,  under  the  most  intolerable  oppression, 
but  civil  war,  with  all  its  aggravations.  It  leaves  open  no  appeal 
to  the  great,  tribunal  of  reason,  justice  and  humanity;  the  right 
of  the  strongest  is  the  right  divine;  and  dissensions  among  aeon- 
federation  of  Christian  States,  can  only  be  adjusted,  like  those  of 
the  wild  beasts  of  the  forest,  by  a  death  struggle.  I  am  aware 
that  this  has  been  the  almost  invariable  practice  of  mankind  in 
every  age  and  country;  but  never  till  now  do  I  recollect  seeing 
it  asserted  that  it  was  the  only  justifiable  mode  of  settling  con 
troversies  among  States  and  nations;  and  it  is  with  no  little 
regret  I  see  this  doctrine  sanctioned  by  one  whose  opinions  are  of 
such  high  authority  among  a  large  portion  of  the  American  peo 
ple.  I  have  dwelt  more  emphatically  on  this  topic,  because  I 
consider  the  right  of  secession  as  by  far  the  most  important  of  all  the 
guestions  involved  in  the  present  controversy ;  and  the  attack  on  it 
as  one  of  the  most  insidious,  as  well  as  dangerous  blows,  ever  levelled 
at  the  rights  of  the  State,  all  of  whom  are  deeply  interested  in  the 
issue;  since  those  who  are  now  the  aggressors,  may  one  day  be 
placed  in  a  position  where  it  will  be  their  only  refuge  from  the 
uncontrolled  despotism  of  a  majority. 

With  regard  to  the  expediency  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina 
exercising  this  right  of  secession,  either  now  or  at  any  future 
period,  it  would,  I  conceive,  be  presumptuous  in  one  so  far  re 
moved  from  the  scene  of  action  to  offer  his  opinion,  or  intrude 
his  advice.  In  such  a  crisis,  South  Carolina  must  act  for  herself, 
and  rely  on  herself  alone.  I  would  only  observe,  that  in  taking  a 
step  so  decisive  as  that  of  withdrawing  from  the  Union,  unanim 
ity  among  her  citizens,  or  something  nearly  approaching  it,  seems 
indispensable.  It  appears,  however,  that  many  distinguished 
men  among  you,  whose  reputation  is  national,  whose  opinions  are 
entitled  to  great  weight,  and  who  have  heretofore  taken  the  lead 
in  opposing  the  Compromise,  believe  that  the  time  for  secession 
is  not  yet  come  ;  that  the  co-operation  of  at  least  a  majority  of 
the  Southern  States  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  successful 
issue  of  such  a  measure;  that  it  is  best  to  wait  for  further  injur 
ies,  or  at  least  to  &ee  whether  they  will  be  attempted,  and  if  so, 
whether  they  will  produce  such  co-operation.  Those  whose 
views  coincide  with  the  resolutions  adopted  by  your  Association, 
on  the  other  hand,  believe  that  immediate  secession,  or  secession 
after  "waiting  a  reasonable  time"  for  the  co-operation  of  other 
States,  is  indispensable  to  the  safety  and  honor  of  the  State  of 
South  Carolina.  Which  of  these  parties  will  eventually  pre 
dominate,  remains  to  be  seen  ;  and  until  that  is  decided,  I  shall 
content  myself  with  asserting  the  right  of  secession,  leaving  the 
expediency  of  its  exercise  to  be  decided  by  the  result.  Should 
it  be  found  that  a  very  considerable  minority  is  not  only  opposed, 


29 

but  will  resist  a  resort  to  this  remedy  for  their  grievances,  I  con 
ceive  its  immediate  adoption  would  be  hazardous  in  the  extreme. 
BUT  WHEN  GREAT  INTERESTS  ARE  AT  STAKE, 
MUCH  SHOULD  BE  RISKED  IN  THEIR  PRESERVA 
TION.  For  myself,  I  will  only  say,  that  were  I  a  citizen  of 
South  Carolina,  or  any  other  Southern  State,  I  trust  I  should  not 
be  found  among  those,  who,  after  placing  themselves  in  front  of  the 
battle,  and  leading  their  followers  inta  a  position  whence  they  could 
not  retreat  without  dishonor,  RETIRED  PROM  THE  FIELD,  ONLY,  IT 

WOULD    SEEM,    TO    SEE    IF    THE     ENEMY    WOULD    PURSUE    THEM. 

A  few  words  more,  Gentlemen,  in  order  that  I  may  not  be 
misunderstood  or  misrepresented,  and  I  will  no  longer  trespass 
on  your  time  and  patience. 

If  I  know  myself,  arid  the  innermost  feeling  of  my  heart,  I  am 
a  better  friend  to  the  Union  than  many  of  those  who,  while 
loudly  professing  their  devotion,  are  steadily  pursuing  a  course 
of  policy  that  has  already  alienated  a  considerable  portion  of  its 
citizens,  and  will  assuredly  bring  about  its  dissolution.  It  is 
under  the  influence  of  this  attachment,  that  I  have  lent  my  feeble 
aid  in  opposition  to  that  policy.  Neither  force  nor  coercion  can 
preserve  a  Union  voluntarily  formed  on  the  basis  of  perfect  equality  ; 
nor  do  I  believe  it  possible  to  preserve  or  perpetuate  this  Con 
federation  by  any  attempts  to  extend  the  powers  of  the  General 
Government  beyond  the  limits  prescribed  by  the  Constitution, 
strictly  construed,  agreeably  to  its  letter  and  spirit.  The  first 
attempt  to  coerce  any  one  of  its  members  WILL  BE  THE  HANDWRITING 
ON  THE  WALL,  predicting  the  speedy  and  certain  fate  of  the  Union. 
It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  great  States,  many  of  them  equal 
in  extent  to  powerful  kingdoms,  and  inhabited  by  increasing 
millions  of  freemen,  jealous  of  their  rights,  brave,  high-spirited, 
and  energetic,  can  be  held  together  except  by  a  voluntary  cohe 
sion.  This  Confederation  may  be  likened  to  the  great  system  of 
the  universe,  and  it  is,  only,  by  the  benign  and  gentle  influence 
of  attraction,  that  the  bright  stars  of  our  constellation  can  be 
kept  in  their  orbits.  Those  who  attempt  to  bridle  or  spur  them, 
will,  in  the  end,  fare  like  the  rash  fool  who  aspired  to  direct  the 
chariot  of  the  sun. 

I  am,  gentlemen,  your  obd't  serv't, 

J.  K.  PAULDING. 

To  F.  D.  Richardson,  H.  H.  Raymond,  W.  H.  Peronneau— Com 
mittee,  &c.,  &c. 
Charleston,  South  Carolina. 


THE    RIGHT    TO    SECEDE. 


We  are  living  in  an  age  of  "Construction,"  and  where  neither 
the  letter  nor  the  spirit  of  the  Charter,  will  suit  the  Construction- 
ist,  a  higher-law-doctrine  is  referred  to,  and  the  "  bed  of  Pro 
crustes"  is  to  settle  the  question.  Let  us  search  the  history  of 
the  world  ;  let  us  exhaust  the  records  of  every  nation  on  the 
globe  ;  let  us  go  back  to  the  days  of  Genesis,  and  let  us  examine 
them,  as  we  progress,  to  the. period  which  produced  Washington, 
and  Hamilton,  and  Jefferson,  and  Marshall,  and  Madison,  and 
Jay;  let  us  continue  to  our  own  time, — the  time  of  Webster,  and 
Clay,  and  Calhoun, — and  we  shall  find  nothing  more  illustrative 
of  this  proposition — this  wild  and  insane  construction,  than  is 
visible  at  the  very  moment  we  are  writing;  than  the  efforts  now 
making  to  subvert  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  by  quot 
ing  the  Constitution  itself  as  authority  for  the  enormities  which 
its  enemies  are  striving  to  perpetrate  !  It  is  claimed  that  we  are 
"one  people" — but  truth  is  fearlessly  denied:  falsehood  is  reck 
lessly  and  knowingly  affirmed:  and  the  Bible  is  to  be  remodeled 
to  answer  the  purposes  of  fraud  and  violence  :  and  the  human 
heart  is  to  be  changed,  and  embittered,  that  hatred  to  the  Slave 
holder  may  be  freely  indulged.  Verily,  it  would  seem  that  Mr. 
Seward  is  right,  and  that  the  "conflict"  between  the  North  and 
South  is  "irrepressible"! 

As  the  Scriptures  themselves  were  intended  to  inculcate  a  firm 
belief  in  the  attributes  of  a  Supreme  Being,  and  to  encourage  a 
full  reliance  upon  His  mercy ;  so  was  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  Slates  conceived,  and  executed  by  brave  and  pious  men,  to 
establish  a  solemn  and  incontrovertible  fact — to  assure  mankind, 
both  at  home  and  abroad,  "That  the  People"  of  these  States  con 
sented  to  be  "united"  for  certain  great  and  declared  purposes ; 
and  those  purposes  being  achieved,  none  other  could  emenate 
from  the  instrument  they,  the  States,  had  created,  but  with  their 
concurrence  and  for  their  benefit:  and  that  the  Sovereignty,  by 
virtue  of  which  they  agreed  to  be  united,  remains,  and  will  for 
ever  remain,  as  perfect  as  though  the  Convention,  which  adopted 
the  Constitution,  had  never  assembled,  and  the  league  had  never 


31 

been  thought  of.     The  spirit  of  mis-rule  has  simply  mistaken  the 
exercise  of  Sovereignty  for  the  abandonment  of  Sovereignty. 

We  quote  the  first  words  of  the  Preamble  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  where  it  is  written,  "  We,  the  People  of  the  United  States, 
[why  not  we,  the  People  of  North  America — or  we,  the  People 
of  the  American  Nation  ?]  "  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect 
union;  establish  justice ;  ensure  domestic  tranquility;  provide 
for  the  common  defence;  promote  the  general  welfare;  and 
secure  the  blessings  of  liberty,  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity, 
do  establish  this  Constitution,  for  the  United  States  of  America." 
Each  State  of  the  "  Old  Thirteen"  had,  and  now  has.  its  own 
Constitution  ;  and  each  of  these  thirteen  consented  to  the  crea 
tion  of  another  Constitution — the  first  for  separate;  and  the  second 
for  combined  purposes,  and  for  united  action,  to  carry  out  those 
purposes — but  on  specified  conditions:  and  those  conditions  are 
plainly  enumerated. 

Now  if  it  can  be  shown  that  these  were  enacted  \>y  Sovereign 
States;  and  if  it  is  made  manifest  that  these  purposes,  are  ctW» 
and  severally,  being  daily  violated  and  disregarded,  by  certain 
parties  to  the  Compact;  we  would  ask,  by  what  principle  of  inter 
national  law,  the  conclusion  is  obtained,  that  other  parties  to  the 
compact,  in  which  all  are  Sovereigns  and  therefore  all  are  equal, 
have  neither  remedy  nor  redress  ?  Aye,  none,  save  that  which  is 
furnished  by  an  abject  or  hopeless  submission  !  or  by  war  and 
revolution  and  by  successful  resistance  to  invasion  and  coercion! 
When  a  compact  is  violated,  it  ceases  to  be  a  compact  quaod  those 
who  are  injured  by  the  violation,  This  is  Mr.  Webster's  doc 
trine;  and  it  is  the  doctrine  of  common  sense  and  of  common 
justice:  else  every  bargain  would  be  a  fraud;  and  every  league, 
a  fallacy;  and  every  union  a  despotism.  Let  us  turn  now,  even 
at  the  risk  of  being  tiresome,  to  the  bond  we  have  given  and 
see  whether  the  conditions,  without  which  its  validity  cannot  be 
sustained,  have  been  faithfully  performed. 

1st.  To  our  "more  perfect  Union."  This  has  ended  by  a  pub 
lic  declaration,  that  we,  of  the  South,  habitually  earn  our  daily 
bread  by  an  institution  which  is  hateful  to  the  sensibilities  of 
our  Northern  brethren,  at  variance  with  every  moral  obligation, 
and  necessarily  to  be  abolished. 

2d.  Our  desire  to  "establish  Justice"  is  made  to  mean,  not 
only  that  the  labor  of  the  South  is  to  enrich  the  North,  but  that 
it  is  to  be  directed  and  controlled  by  fanaticism  and  madness;  or 
that  it  is  to  be  rendered  by  a  causeless  hostility  to  us  and  to  our 
institutions,  the  bitterest  curse  that  ever  humanity  was  afflicted 
with. 

3d.  We  bargained  to  "ensure  domestic  tranquility,"  and  in  fur 
therance  of  this,  Virginia,  as  a  Slave  State,  is  invaded  and 
assailed;  her  soil,  desecrated ;  her  citizens,  murdered;  her  laws, 
ridiculed  :  and  our  co-obligors  to  the  bond,  so  far  from  inter 
posing,  express  no  other  regrets  but  that  the  incendiaries  and 


32 

assassins  have  been  punished;  and  make  no  other  demonstration, 
but  by  expressing  their  utter  horror  and  disgust,  that  the  shedding 
of  innocent  blood  has  not  been  considered  as  a  sacred  service  to 
God  and  as  a  solemn  duty  to  His  creatures. 

4th.  In  order  to  "  provide  for  the  common  defence,"  one  section 
of  our  country  enthusiastically  encourages  rebellion  in  anoth 
er;  and  in  every  Cotton  State  in  the  Confederacy,  slaves  are  to 
be  provided  with  arms  to  be  used  against  their  masters. 

5th.  To  "promote  the  general  welfare,"  the  particular  interests 
of  fifteen  States  are  to  be  sacrificed;  the  internal  commerce  of 
thirty-three  States,  now  estimated  at  four  thousand  millions  of  dol 
lars,  is  to  be  abolished.  And  why?  That  four  millions  of  negroes, 
who  have  been  accustomed  to  restraint,  may  be  turned  loose  upon 
the  world,  and  that  their  legitimate  owners  may  forthwith  be  in 
bondage. 

6th.  In  order  to-usecure  the  blessings  of'liberty  to  ourselves  and 
our  posterity,"  vve,  of  the  Sou^h,  are  to  be  deprived  of  our  prop- 
ertv;  to  ke  branded  as  enemies  of  the  human  race;  and,  finally, 
according'  to  the  diction  and  taste  of  a  Senator  from  Massa 
chusetts,  (Mr.  Sumner),  to  be  "driven,  like  poisoned  vermin, 
to  die  in  our  holes;"  and,  as  if  to  suit  the  action  to  the  word, 
already  we  are  called  on  to  see  the  inhabitants  of  a  sister  State* 
selected  as  victims  to  that  poison,  which  the  philanthropy  of 
our  Northern  brethren  has  so  generously  and  bountifully  sup 
plied. 

Thus  has  the  North  performed  the  conditions  of  the  bond. 
What  are  the  results  to  the  South?  Whole  towns  have  been 
laid  in  ashes.  Farms  have  been  desolated.  Crops,  which  were 
the  result  of  industry  and  of  labor  judiciously  applied,  have 
been  laid  waste  and  destroyed.  Fathers  and  brothers  were 
to  be  butchered ;  mothers  and  daughters,  exposed  to  brutali 
ties,  the  most  atrocious  and  revolting  ;  children,  exterminated  ; 
and  the  first  act  in  the  drama  requires  us  to  become  the  exe 
cutioners  of  slaves,  transmitted  to  us  by  our  ancestors  as  per 
sons  we  are  bound  to  protect  and  defend.  And  let  the  South  be 
admonished  that  all  this  is  to  be  done,  because  a  domestic  insti 
tution  is  not  abandoned — an  institution  ordained  by  the  Creator 
and  recognized  by  His  law;  that  feeds  and  clothes  the  world  ; 
that  gives  to  the  barbarian  a  knowledge  of  God  and  the  consola 
tions  of  a  benign  religion;  that  confers  on  the  savage  the  benefits 
of  civilized  life;  that  protects  the  negro  against  the  vicissitudes 
of  infancy  and  old  age;  that  keeps  him  in  the  only  position,  where 
he  can  be  useful  to  society  and  harmless  to  himself;  that  is 
expressly  provided  for  in  the  Constitution  :  because  it  is  not  abol 
ished  even  at  the  cost  of  endless  suffering ;  of  anarchy  and 
chaos,  where  order  now  prevails;  of  servile  conflict,  where 
allegiance  now  exists;  of  misery  and  anguish  to  black  and 

#  Texas. 


33 

white,  where  now  the  happiness  of  both  is  secure;  of  poverty 
and  want,  where  abundance  and  comfort  are  now.  And,  my 
countrymen,  let  us  now  ask  a  single  but  an  essential  question  : 
Is  this  fiction  or  is  it  fact !  If  'we  have  spoken  truthfully,  as 
we  assuredly  desire  to  do,  is  there  a  solitary  condition  on  which 
we  signed  the  bond,  that  has  not  been  openly,  barbarously  and 
insultingly  violated?  Is  there  any  injury  so  consuming  as  that 
with  which  we  are  threatened  ?  Is  there  any  epithet,  the  vilest 
and  the  basest,  that  has  not  been  applied  to  us?  Is  there  any 
fallacy  so  extreme  as  the  idea  that  liberty  can  exist  where  these 
atrocities  have  neither  check  nor  remedy  ?  There  is  a  remedy. 
The  sovereignty  of^the  States;  and  this  sovereignty  is  record 
ed  in  every  article  and  ia  almost  every  section  of  the  Con 
stitution  ;  on  every  page  it  is  made  manifest;  and  by  every 
reasonable  construction,  it  is  intended  to  be  regarded  as  the 
cardinal  principle  by  which  the  government  "lives  and  jias  its 
being."  The  difficulty  is,  not  to  perceive  arguments  to  sustain 
this  doctrine,  but  to  find  time  to  express  them.  Take  the 
legislative  branch  of  the  Government.  The  House-of  Represent 
atives  is  the  most  democratic  ;  and  in  it  population  alone  is 
represented.  Do  the  people  of  the  United  States  elect ?  or  do 
the  several  States  choose?  An  ordinary  freshman  may  answer 
the  question.  The  States  of  course.  The  States  fix  the  time 
and  manner  of  holding  elections;  and  the  States  count  the 
votes  and  declare  the  result.  So  much  for  the  popular  branch  of 
the  Federal  Legislature.  As  to  the  Senate,  States  and  only 
States  are  there  recognized — Delaware -taking  rank  with  JNew 
York  :  and  in  all  appointments  to  the  Supreme  Court ;  of  Minis 
ters  to  foreign  countries  ;  of  officers  of  every  grade,  at  home  and 
abroad  ;  "  Confirmation"  must  be  obtained  equally  from  Rhode 
Island  and  Pennsylvania,  or  equally  from  the  largest  and  the 
smallest:  because  all  are  Sovereign.  Again.  In  the  event  of 
vacancy  in  either  branch  of  the  Federal  Legislature,  the  Execu 
tive  of  the  States  issues  writs  of  election  ;  and  the  people  of  the 
States  vote  or  do  not  vote,  just  as  they  please. 

If  the  President  is  to  be  elected,  who  appoints  the  electors? 
The  people  in  their  aggregate  capacity?  or  the  States  as  individual 
communities?  The  States,  as  the  Legislatures  of  each  shall 
direct:  and  if  no  election  is  piade — what  then?  Why  the 
Senate,  where  the  people  are  not  known  and  where  States  are 
supreme,  having  ascertained  this  failure  to  elect,  sends  the  case 
to  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  there  the  vote  is  taken — 
how?  by  numbers?  No.  But  by  States:  each  State  having 
one  vote,  without  reference  to  territory  or  .to  population.  And  if 
here  again,  no  decision  is  obtained  by  a  given  time — fourth  day 
of  March — the  Senate,  or  States  representing  Sovereignty,  re 
sume  all  power,  and  from  two  names,  (the  highest  on  the  list,) 
declare,  by  a  single  ballot,  who  shall  be  President;  and  the  per 
son  so  chosen  is  President  beyond  the  reach  either  of  people  or 
numbers.  Is  there  no  sovereignty  in  all  this? 
c3 


34 

Turn  to  Section  8th  :  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to  levy  and 
collect  taxes,"  &c.,  &c.  Mark,  not  right,  but  power.  From 
whom  was  this  power  derived  ?  I  answer,  from  the  Conventions 
held  in  the  States,  and  which,  adopted  the  Constitution.  And 
how  did  those  Conventions  assemble  ?  I  answer,  again,  by  con 
sent  of  each  separate  State.  And  where  did  they  assemble? 
Again,  I  answer,  within  the  borders  of  each  State,  and  under  the 
protection  of  each  State.  And  what  other  authority  existed  at 
the  time  for  legislating  or  for  deciding  on  the  subject?  None  on 
earth.  What  more  is  required  ?  But  to  make  assurance  doubly 
sure,  see  10th  article  of  Amendments,  where  it  is  written  that 
powers  not  delegated,  <&c.,  "are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively, 
or  to  the  people."  How  and  by  whom  reserved  ?  Why  by  those 
who  had  the  power  to  delegate,  that  is  the  States,  which  could 
adopt  or  reject  the  Constitution  as  they  pleased,  and  without  con 
sulting  any  human  tribunal. 

In  sense,  in  letter,  and  m  spirit,  "  people"  meant,  and  now 
mean  people  of  the  States,  and  not  of  the  United  States,  in 
their  aggregate  capacity  ;  and  if  the  Constitution  is  now  to  be 
amended,  the  States  only  can  do  so:  they  created,  and  they  only 
can  amend. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  a  flag — and  does  that 
flag  show  its  consolidated  supremacy  ?  No.  It  declares  to  the 
world  that  it  is  a  Government  made  up  of  delegated  powers;  and 
it  shows  by  the  number  of  its  stars  the  number  of  sovereign 
States,  which  have  delegated  to  the  Federal  Government  all  the 
power  that  it  possesses. 

Sovereignty  clearly  exists  in  the  States,  and  is,  in  its  nature 
and  essence,  separate  and  distinct.  And  if  it  exists,  it  may 
be  exercised,  and  that  exercise  can  depend  only  upon  its  own 
will — its  own  conception  of  what  is  due  to  policy  or  to  character. 

The  Old  Thirteen,  assuredly,  entered  the  Union  as  Sovereigns. 
Their  voluntary  entrance  was  an  act  of  sovereignty.  They  dele 
gated,  for  the  purposes  named  in  the  preamble  to  the  Consti 
tution,  the  powers  enumerated  in  section  8;  and  subsequently  by 
the  10th  article  of  Amendments,  they  expressly  reserved  to  them 
selves  those  which  were  never  delegated  :  in  a  word,  they  parted 
with  no  rights — they  simply  conferred  powers,  that  duties  might 
be  performed.  They  had  the  right  to  retire  from  the  Conven 
tion.  They  never  compromised  that,  or  any  other  right :  and 
that  of  seceding  from  the  Union  is  as  perfect  now,  as  was  then 
the  right  to  enter  into  it.  It  is  absurd  to  talk  of  this  right  to 
secede  not  being  conferred  by  the  Constitution.  The  Constitu 
tion  can  confer  no  right  upon  the  States  ;  and  the  simple  and  only 
inquiry  is,  where  is  the  power  to  coerce  a  State  delegated  to  the 
Federal  Government?  If  that  power  is  not  given,  the  argument 
is  at  an  end. 

The  injured  party  has  a  right  to  secede,  quietly  and  in  peace  ; 
and  the  denial  of  that  right  is  just  cause  for  war,  Mr.  Douglas  to 


35 

the  contrary  notwithstanding.  No  amount  of  oppression  or  of 
violence,  can  destroy  that  right :  because  it  is  not  derivative,  but 
inherent  in  the  party  possessing  it  and  defending  it.  The  States 
earned  and  acquired  that  right  by  the  Revolution  of  1776,  and 
they  hold  it  in  fee.  The  Constitution  acknowledges  it;  the  Laws 
of  the  United  States  acknowledge  it;  and  the  Mother  Country 
acknowledges  it.  Let  the  bonds  of  South  Carolina,  or  of  any  other 
State  be  placed  in  market  in  London  or  Liverpool,  and  we  shall 
see  at  once  how  far  the  States  are  known  and  trusted. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  enter  into  any  metaphysical  discussion 
as  to  the  difference  between  right  and  power;  but  we  will 
briefly  say,  that  while  power  is  ofttimes  exercised  by  robbers, 
pirates  and  highwaymen;  right  is  forever  vested  in  the  legitimate 
owner. 

One  word  more.  We  have  said  that  any  State  that  feels  her 
self  aggrieved,  may  retire  from  the  Confederacy  and  seek 
safety  within  her  own  borders;  or  she  may  join  other  retiring 
States,  who  having  a  common  interest,  may  rest  upon  a  common 
remedy.  Does  any  sane  man  doubt  that  Massachusetts  could, 
either  alone  or  with  other  communities  in  New  England,  take  the 
ground  that  Slavery  is  repugnant  to  her  sense  of  morality,  and 
therefore  that  her  political  association  with  Slaveholders  is  no 
longer  possible?  Can  it  be  doubted  that  such  being  her  solemn 
convictions,  she  could  find  her  remedy  in  those  reserved  rights 
alluded  to  in  the  10th  Amendment  ?  And  what  Southern  man 
would  hesitate  to  stigmatize  him  as  a  ruffian,  who  would  propose 
to  coerce  Massachusetts  into  measures  at  variance  with  her  hap 
piness,  destructive  to  her  society,  and  fatal  to  her  relations  with 
her  fellow-men  in  every  quarter  of  the  globe  ?  And  who  is 
there  on  our  side  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  that  would  excite 
against  her,  the  John  Browns  that  can  always  be  found  when 
murder  is  to  be  committed?  Who  is  there  that  would  subscribe 
to  send  emissaries  to  invade  her  soil ;  to  burn  her  barns  and  her 
dwellings ;  to  poison  her  wells  and  her  water  courses,  or  avail 
themselves  of  temporary  strength  to  put  her  beyond  the  pale  of 
civilization;  to  send  armies  or  navies  to  shed  the  blood  of  her 
people,  or  to  trample  her  into  submission  ?  If  there  be  such  a 
man,  he  is  no  countryman  of  ours.  No;  we  should  say,  "  throw 
the  tea  overboard"  if  you^ffeas©1;  we  shall  neither  help  you  nor 
harm  you.  Yes  !  we  should  say  so,  upon  the  ground  that  each 
State  has  a  right  to  secede  from  this  Union,  because  this  is  the 
principle  upon  which  the  Republic  was  formed;  it  is  the  princi 
ple  of  all  Constitutional  Law,  and  it  is  for  the  injured  parties 
(who  perceiving  that  ruin  and  desolation  make  the  alternative) 
to  decide  upon  the  application  of  the  principle ;  and  if  that 
prerogative  is  denied,  then  are  they  living  under  a  tyranny  more 
or  less  revolting  or  degrading,  as  a  corrupt  majority  may  decide 
to  inflict.  The  gravity  of  this  measure  of  secession  and  the 


stupendous  consequences  connected  with  it,  wiJl  always  furnish  as 
much  restraint  as  is  sufficient  or  wholesome. 

The  staples  of  the  South  have  been  necessary  to  the  North. 
We  have  continuously  furnished  those  staples,  and  we  have  con 
sented  to  see  her  enriched  by  our  labour.  We  have  warned  her 
that  a  separation  would  follow  their  continued  and  unholy 
;iilts.  They  have  rejected  these  warnings  and  elected  Mr. 
Lincoln.  They  have  dared  us  to  resist;  they  have  taunted 
us  with  our  weakness;  they  have  menaced  us  with  war  and 
invasion  from  without,  and  with  sedition  from  within.  We  have 
submitted,  and  are  submitting,  to  their  rapacity,  their  cruelty 
and  their  hatred.  But  it  is  possible,  we  have  greater  evils  yet 
before  us.  When  new  States  are  admitted;  when  Abolition 
becomes  stronger  and  stronger;  when  the  Supreme  Court  is  re 
modeled  ;  when  the  power  to  amend  developes  the  power  to 
destroy — how  are  we  to  stem  the  torrent  or  avoid  the  cataract? 
In  whal '-place  are  we  to  seek  for  shelter,  if  the  right  to  retreat 
before  our  enemies,  or  to  retire  within  our  borders,  is  repudiated 
and  denied?  When  the  two-fifths  doctrine  is  expunged;  the 
rendition  of  fugitive  slaves  is  looked  upon  as  a  remnant  of  bar 
barism;  when  the  eligibility  to  hold  office  is  confined  to  those  who 
eschew  slavery  as  a  sin;  when  we  are  threatened  with  fire  and 
sword,  even  in  our  hiding-places  at  home  ;  and  when  poison  is 
openly  prescribed  and  provided  for  the  Cotton  States  of  the  Con 
federacy — where,  then,  shall  we  be?  Who  will  be  our  masters? 
Where  will  be  the  spirit  of  our  ancestors?  Who  will  teach  us 
the  footpath  to  their  graves  ?  What  says  the  South  ? 

STATES. 


Evans  &  Cogswell's  Steam-Power  Presses,  3  Broad  Street,  Charleston,  S.  C. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWE] 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  OQ  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


LD  2lA-50m-4,'60 
(A9562slO)476B 


General  Library 

UoiTCrtiry  of  California 

Berkeley 


U.  C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


LIBRARY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWS 

LOAN  DEPT. 


JJBj 

MAY?   'I 


LD  62A-20m-9,'63 
(E709slO)9412A 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


